II)c Lancaster iintdUijciva't: VOL. LVIII PRESIDENT'S MB SSAG-B. Fellow Citizens of Ike Senate and House of Representatives: In obedience to tbe commend of the consti tution, it has now become my duty “to give to Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures ” as I judge to be “ necessary and expedient.” But first, and above all, our thanks are due to Almighty Cod for the numerous benefits which He has bestowed upon this people, and our united prayers ought to ascend to Him that He would continue to bless our great re public in time to come as He has blessed it in time past. Since the adjournment of the last Congress our constituents have enjoyed an unusual degree of health. The earth has yielded her fruits abundantly, and has boun tifully rewarded the toil of the husbandman. Our great staples have commanded high pHces, and, up to within a brief period, our manufac turing, mineral, and mechaniaal occupations have largely partaken of the general prosper ity. We have possessed all the elements of material wealth, iryrich abundance, and yet, notwithstanding all these advantages, our country, in its monetary interests, iB at the present moment in a deplorable condition. In the midst of unsurpassed plenty in all the productions of agriculture and in all the elements of national wealth, we find our man ufactures suspended, our public works retar ded, our private enterprises of different kinds abandoned, and thousands of useful laborers thrown out of employment and reduced to want. The revenue of the government, whioh is chiefly derived from duties on imports from abroad, has been greatly reduced, whilst the appropriations made by Congress at its last session for the current fiscal year are very large in amount. Under these circumstances a loan may be required before the close of your present ses sion ; but this, although deeply to be regret ted, would prove to be only a slight misfor tune when compared with the suffering and distress prevailing among the people. With this the government cannot fail deeply to sym pathize, though it may be without the power to extend relief. It is our duty to inquire what has produced such unfortunate results, and whether their recurrence can be prevented ? In all former revulsions the blame might have been fairly attributed to a variety of co-operating causes ; but not upon the present occasion. It is ap parent that our existing misfortunes have pro ceeded solely from our extravagant and vicious system of paper currency and bank credits, exciting the people to wild speculations and gambling in stooks. These revulsions must continue to recur at successive intervals so long as the amount of the paper currency and bank loans and discounts of the country shall be left to the discretion of fourteen hundred irresponsible banking institutions which from the very law of their nature will consult the interest of their stockholders rather than the public welfare. The framers of the constitution, when they gave to Congress the power “to coin money and to regulate the value thereof,” and pro hibited the States from coining money, emit ting bills of credit, or making anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, supposed they had protected the people against the evils of an excessive and irredeem able paper currency. They are not responsi ble for the existing anomaly that a govern ment endowed with the sovereign attribute of coming money and regulating the value there of should have no power to prevent others from driving this coin out of the country and i filling up the channels of circulation with pa- 1 per which does not represent gold and silver. It is one of the highest and most responsible duties of the government to insure to the peo pie a sound circulating medium. The amount of which ought to be adapted with the utmost possible wisdom and skill to the wants of in ternal trade aud foreign exchange. If this be either greatly above or greatly below the prop er standard, the marketable value of every man’s property is increased or diminished in the same proportion, and injustice to individ uals as well as incalculable evils to the com munity in consequenoe. Unfortunately, under the construction of the federal constitution, whioh has now prevailed too long to be changed, this important and delicate duty has been dissevered from the coining power and virtually transferred to more than fourteen hundred State banks, act ing independently of eaoh other, and regula ting their paper issues almost exclusively by a regard to the present interest of their stock holders. Exercising the sovereign power of providing a paper currenoy, instead of coin, for the country, the first duty whioh these bankß owe to the publio is to keep in their Vaults a sufficient amount of gold and silver to insure the convertibility of their notes into coin at all times .and under all circumstances. No bank ought ever to be chartered without suoh restrictions on its business as to Beoure this result. All other restrictions are com paratively vain. This is the only true touohstoue, the only ■efficient regulator of a paper ourreucy—the only one whioh oan guard the publio against over issues and bank suspensions. As a col lateral and eventful Beourity it is doubtless wise, and in all cases ought to be required, that banks shall hold an amount of United States or State securities equal to their notes in oiroulation and pledged for their redemp tion. This, however, furnishes no adequate security against over-issues. On the contrary, it may be perverted to inflate the currenoy.— Indeed, it is possible by this means to convert all the debts of the United States and State Governments into bank notes, without refer ence to the specie required to redeem them. However valuable these securities may be in themselves, they cannot be converted into gold and silver at the moment of pressure, as our experience teaches, in sufficient time to prevent bank suspensions aud the depreciation of bank notes. In England, which is to a con siderable extent a paper money county, though vastly behind our own in this respect, it was deemed advisable, anterior to the act of parliament of 1844, which wisely separated the issue of notes from the banking depart ment, for the Bank of England always to keep on hand gold and silver equal to one-third of its combined circulation and deposits. If thiß proportion was no more than suffi cient to secure the convertibility of its notes, with the whole of Great Britain, and to Borne extent the continent of Earope as a field for its circulation, rendering it almost impossible that a sudden and immediate run to a danger ous amount Bhould be made upon it, the same proportion would certainly be insufficient un der our banking system. Each of our four teen hundred banks has but a limited circum ference for its circulation, aud in the course of a very few days the depositors and note holders might demand from such a bank-a sufficient amount in specie to compel it to suspend, even although it had coin in its vaults equal to one-third of its immediate lia bilities. * And yet I am not aware, with the exception of the banks of Louisiana, that any State bank throughout the Union lias been required by its oharter to keep this or any other proportion of gold and silver compared with the amount of its combined circulation and deposites.— What has been the consequence? In a recent report made by the Treasury Department oe the condition of the banks throughout thn different States, according to returns dated nearest to January, 1857, the agregate amount of aotual specie in their vaults is $58,349,838, of their circulation $214,778,822, and of their deposites $230,351,352. Thus it appears that these banks in the agregate have consderably ‘ less than one dollar in seven of gold and silver compared with their circulation and deposites. It was therefore, that the very first pressure must drive them to suspension, and de prive the people of a convertible currency with all its disastrous consequences. It is truly wonderful that they should have so long continued to pre serve their credit, when a demand for the pay*, ment of one seventh of their immediate liabilities would have driven them into insolvency. And this is the condition of the banks, notwithstanding that four hundred millions of gold from California have flowed in upon us within the last eight years, and the tide still continues to flow. Indeed, such has been the extravagapoe of bank oredits that the hanks now hold a considerably less amount of ■peoie, either in proportion to their capital ’or to their circulation and depositee combined, that they did before the discovery of gold in California; Whilst in the year 1848 their specie in propor tion to their capital was more than equal t> one dollar for four and a half, in 1857 it doei not amount to one dollar for every six dollars] and hitrty-three cents of their capital. In theJ year 1848 the specie was equal within a very "Small fraction to one dollar in five of their circulation and deposites; in 1857 it is not equal to one dollar in seven and a half of their circulation antjj de posites. u. From this statement it is easy to account for our financial history for the last forty years. It has been a history of extravagant expansions in the business of the country, followed by ruinous contractions. At successive intervals theilbest and most enterprising men have been tempted to their ruin by excessive bank loans of mere jpaper credit, exciting them to extravagant importations of foreign goods, wild speculations, and rqjnous and demoralizing stock gambling. Wheq; the crisis arrives, as arrive it must, the banks cab ex tend no relief to the people. In a vain straggle to redeem their liabilities in specie they are loom polled to contraot their loans and their issues ; and at last, in the hour of distress, when tbejr as sistance is mostneeded, they and their debtors to getber sink into insolvency. ; It is this paper system of extravagant elfpan sion, raising the nominal price of every article far beyond its real value, when compared wittj the cost of similar articles in countries whose circula tion is wisely regulated, which has prevented us from competing in our own markets with foreign manufactures, has produced extravagant importa tions and has counteracted the effect of the jlarge incidental protection afforded to our domestic manufactures by the present revenue tariffjeom posed of raw materials, the production of out] own country—such as cotton, iron aod woollen fabrics —would not only have acquired almost exclusive possession of the home market, but would j.have created for themselves a foreign market through out the world. 1 Deplorable, however, as may be our present financial condition, we may yet indulge in tiright hopes or the future. No other nation has! ever existed which could have endured such violent expansions and contractions of paper credit ‘{with out lasting injury; yet the buoyancy of youth, the energies of our population, and the 'lspirit which never quails before difficulties, will enable us soon to recover from our preseot financial em barrassment, and may even occasion us speedily to forget the lesson which they have taught.l In the meantime it is the duty of the govern ment by all proper means within its power, to aid in alleviating the sufferings of the people occasion ed by the suspension of the banks, and to provide against the recurrence of the same calamity Unfortunately, in either aspect of the case, it can do but little. Thanks to the independent treasury the government has not suspended payment,i|as it was compelled to do by the failure of the banks in 1837. It will continue to discharge its liabili ties to the people in gold and silver “Its disburse ments in coin will pass into circulation, and jnate rially assist in restoring a sound currency. From its high credit, should we be compelled to mike a temporary loan, it can be effected on advantageous terms. This, however, shall, if possible, be dvoid ed ; but, if not, then the amount shall be limited to the lowest practicable sum. ;[ I have, therefore, determined that whilst no useful government works already in progress shall be suspended, new works, now already cordmenced, will be postponed, if this cg[n be done without injury to the country. Those necessary for its defence shall proceed aS tho’ there had been no crisis in our monetary af fairs. But the Federal Government cannot do much to provide against a recurrence of existing' evils. Even if insurmountable constitutional objections did not exist against the creation ot a National Bank, this would furnish n<j ade quate preventive security. The history qf the last Bank of the United States abundantly proves the truth of this assertion. Such a bank could not, if it would, regulate tte is sues and credits of fourteen hundred [State banks in such a manner as to prevent tike ru inous expansions and contractions in our cur rency which afflicted throughout the existence of the late bank, or seoure us against future suspensions. In 1825 an effort was made by the Bank of England to curtail the issues of the country banks under the most favorable circumstances. "j The paper currency had been expanded to a ruinous extent, and the bank put fcnjjtk all its power to contract it in order to reduce prices and restore the equilibrium of foreign ex changes. It accordingly commenced a system of curtailment of its loans and issues, jin the vain hope that the joint stock and private banks of the kingdom would he compelled to follow its example. It found, howeved that as it contracted they expanded, and at the end ►of the process, to employ the of a very high official authority, “whatever reduc tion of the paper circulation was effected by the Bank of England fin 1825) was more than made up by the issues of the country ba!nks.” But the Bank of the United States would not, if it could, restrain the issues and] loans of the State banks, because its duty as a : regu lator of the currency must often be in a'direct conflict with the immediate interests lof its stockholders. If we expect one agent to re strain or control another, their interests must, at least in some degree, he antagonistic. But the direotors of a Bank of the United States would feel the same interest and the same in clination with the direotors of the State Jbanka to expand the currenoy, to accommodate their favorites and friends with loans, and to deolare large dividends. Suoh has been our experi ence in regard to the last bank. After all, we must mainly rely upon thejj patri otism and wisdom of the States for the prevention and redress of the evil. If they will afford Jus a real speoie basis for our paper circulation |by in oreasing the denomination of bank notes, first to twenty, and afterwards to fifty dollars; if they will require that the banks shall at all times keep on hand at least one dollar of gold and silver for every three dollars of their circulation and deposits ; and if they will provide by :a self executing enactment, whioh nothing can that the moment they suspend they shall go into liquidation, I believe that such provisions, 'with a weekly publication by each bank of a statement of its condition, would go far to secure us against future suspensions of specie payments. Congress, in my opinion, possess the power to pass a uniform bankrupt law applicable', to all banking institutions throughout the United'States and I strongly recommend its exercise. This would make it the irreversible law of each-bank's existence, that a suspension of specie payments shall produce its civil < eath. The instinct of self preservation would then' compel it to perform its duties in such a manner as to escape the penalty and preserve its life. !' The existence of banks and the circulation of bank paper are so identified with tlie hab its of our people,- that they cannot at tliis day be suddenly abolished without much immedi ate injury to the country. If we could Confine them to their appropriate sphere, and prevent them from administering to the spirit cjf wild and reckless speculation by extravagant loans and issues, they might be continued with ad vantage to the public. 1 But this I say, after long and much 1 reflec tion : if experience shall prove it to be impos sible to enjoy the facilities which well-Cegula ted banks might afford, without at the> same time suffering the calamities which thejlexcess of the banks have hitherto inflicted upon the country, it would be far .the lesser evil] to de prive them altogether of the power to issue a paper currency and confine them to the func tions of banks of deposits and discount;. Our relations with foreign governments are, upon the whole, in a satisfactory condition. The diplomatic difficulties which existed between the Government of the United! States and that of Great Britain at the adjournment of the last Congress have been happily termi nated by the appointment of a British- minis ter to this who has been cordially received. 1; Whilst it is greatly to the I am convinced it is the sincere desire, of tde gov ernments and people of the two countries to be on terms of intimate friendship witd each other, it has misfortune almost al ways to have had some irritating, if nclt dan gerous, outstanding question with Great Brit ain. | Since the origin of the government we have been employed in negotiating treaties; with that power, and afterwards in discussing their true intent and meaning. In this respect, the convention of April 19,1850, commonly called the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, has b4en the most unfortunate of all; because the two gov ernments place directly opposite and Contra dictory constructions upon its first and most important article. jl Whilst, in the United States, we believed that this treaty would place both powers upon an exact equality by the stipulation that neither will ever “ocoupy, or fortify, of 0010- “ THAT COUNTRY IS THE MOST PROSPEROUS WHERE LABOR COMMANDS THE GREATEST REWARD.”- LANCASTER CITY, PA.. TUESDAY MORNING/DECEMBER 15, 1857. nize, or assume or exercise any dominion” over any part of Central America, it is con tended by the British government that the true construction of this language has left them in the rightful possession of all that portion of Central America which was in their occupancy at the date of the treaty; in fact, that the treaty is a virtual recognition on the part of the United States of the right of Great Britain, either as owner or protector, to the whole ex tensive coast of Central America, sweeping round from the Rio Hondo to the port and har bor of San Juan del Nicaragua, together with the adjacent Bay Islands, except the compar atively small portion ot this between the Sars toon and'Cape Hondurac. According to their construction the treaty does no more than simply prohibit them from extending their possessions in Central America beyond the present limits. It is not too much to assert that if in the United States the treaty had been considered susceptible of such a construction it never would have been negotiated under the authority of the President, nor would it have received the approbation of the Senate. The universal conviction in the United States was, that when our government consented to vio late its traditional and time-honored policy, and to stipulate with a foreign government never to occupy or acquire territory in the Central American portion of our own conti nent, the consideration for this sacrifice was that Great Britain should, in this respect at least, be placed in the same position with our selves. Whilst we have no right to donbt the sincerity of the British government in their construction of the treaty, it is at the same time my deliberate conviction that this con struction is in opposition both to its letter and its spirit. Under the late administration negotiations were instituted between the two governments ! for the purpose, if possible, of removing these | difficulties; and a treaty having this laudable ] object in view was signed at Loudon on the 17th October, 1856, and was submitted to the i Senate on the following 10th of December.— | Whether this treaty; either in its original or I omended form, would have accomplished- the ] abject intended without giving birth to new and [ embarrassing complication between the two ] governments, may perhaps be well questioned, j Certain it is, however, it was rendered much | less objectionable by the different amendments • made to it by the Senate. The treaty, as amended, was ratified by me on the 12th March 1857, and was transmitted to London for ratifi tion by the British government. That govern- ' ment expressed its willingness .to concur in all the amendments made by the Senate with the | single exception of the clause relating to Rua- , tan and the other islands in the Bay of Hon duras. The article in the original treaty, as . submitted to the Senate,after reoiting that these j islands and their inhabitants “ having been ! by a convention bearing date the 27th day of ' August, 1850, between her Brittannic Majesty ' and the republic of Honduras, constituted and j declared a free territory under the sovereignty j of the said republic of Honduras," stipulated that “ the two contracting powers do hereby mutually engage to recognise and respect in all future time the independence and rights of, the said free territory as a part of the republic of Honduras.” Upon an* examination of this convention be tween Great Britain and Honduras of the 27th 1 August, 1856, it was found that, whilst declar- ; ing the Bay Islands to be “a free territory under the soverignty of the republic of Hon duras,” it deprived that republic of the rights without which its sovereignty over them could scarcely be said to exist. It deprived them from the remainder of Honduras, and gave to their inhabitants a separate government of their own, with legislative, executive, and judicial officers elected by themselves. It deprived the government of Honduras of the taxing power in every form, and exempted the people of the insland from the perfor mances of military duty except for their own exclusive defence. It also prohibited that re public from erecting fortifications upon them for their protection—thns leaving them open to invasion from any quarter ; and, finally, it provided “that slavery shall not at any time hereafter be permitted to exist therein.l’ Had Honduras ratified this convention, she would have ratified the establishment of a State substantially independent within her own limits, and a State at all times subject to British influence and control. Moreover, had the United States iatified the treaty with Great Britain in its original form, ws should have been bound “ to recognize and respeot in all future time ” these stipulations to the pre judice of Honduras. Being in direct opposi tion to the spirit and meaning of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty as understood in the Uni ted States, the Senate rejected the entire clause, and substituted in its stead a simple recognition of the sovereign right of Hondu ras to these islands in the following language: “ The two contracting parties do hereby mutu ally engage to recognize and respect the islands of Ruatan, Bonaco, Utila, Barbaretta, Helena and Morat, situate in the Bay of Hon duras, and off the coast of the republic of Hon duras, as under the sovereignty and as part of the said republic of Honduras.” Great Britain rejeoted this amendment, as siging as the only reason, that the ratification of the convention of the 27th August, 1856, between her and Honduras, had not-, been “ex changed, owing to the hesitation of the gov ernment.” Had this been done, it is stated that “her Majesty’s government would have had little difficulty in agreeing to the modifi cation proposed by the Senate, which then would have in effect the same signification as the original wording.” Whether this would have been the effect; whether the mere cir cumstance of the exchange of the ratifications of the British convention with Honduras prior in point of time to the ratification of our trea ty with Great Britain would, “in effeot, ” have had “the same signification as the original wording,” and thus nullified the amendment of the Senate, may well doubted. It is, perhaps, fortunate that the question has nev er arisen. The British government immediately after rejecting the treaty as amended, proposed to enter into a new treaty with the U. States, similar in all respects to the treaty which they had just refused to ratify, if the United States would consent to add to the Senate’s clear and unqualified recognition of the sovereignty of Honduras over the Bay Islands the following conditional stipulation: “Whenever and so soon the republic of Honduras shall have con cluded and ratified a treaty with Great Brit ain, by which Great Britain shall have ceded, and the republic of Honduras shall have ac cepted, the said islands, subject to the provi sions and conditions contained in such treaty." This proposition was, of course, rejected.— After the Senate had refused to recognize the British convention with Honduras of the 27th of August, 1856, with full knowledge of its contents, it was impossible for me, necessarily ignorant of “the provisions and conditions” which might be contained in a future conven tion between the same parties, to sanction them in advance. The fact is, that when two nations like Great Britain and the United States, mutually de sirous as they are, and 1 trust ever may be, of maintaining the most friendly relations with each other, have unfortunately concluded a treaty which they understand in senses di rectly opposite, the wisest course is to abrogate such a treaty by mutuaheonsent, and to com mence anew. Had this been done promptly, all difficulties in Central America would most probably, ere this, have been adjusted to the satisfaction of both parties. The time spent in discussing the meaning of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty would have been devoted to this praisworthy purpose, and the task would have been the most easily acoegpplished be cause the interest of the twoLconntries in Central America is identical, being confined to securing safe transits overall the routes across the Isthmus. Whilst entertaining these sentiments, I shall nevertheless not refuse to contribute to any reav sonable adjustment of the Central America ques tions which is not practically inconsistent with the Amerioan interpretation of the treaty. Over tures for this purpose have been reoently made by the British government in a friendly spirit, which I cordially reciprocate ; but whether this renewed effort will result in success I am. not yet prepared to ezpress.an opinion. A brief period will deter mine. With France our anoient relations of friendship ■till continue to exist. The Freneh government have in several recent instanoes whioh need not I be enumerated, evinced a spirit of good ; will and kindness towards our country which I heartily ! reciprocate. It is, notwithstanding, much to be ! regretted that two nations whose productions are ! of such a character as to invite the most.ertensive exchanges and freest commercial intercourse, should continue to enforce ancient and obsolete restrictions of trade against-each other. Our commercial treaty with France is in this respect an exception from our treaties with all other com mercial nations. It jealously levies discriminating duties both on tonnage and on articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of the one country, when arriving in vessels belonging to the other. More than forty years ago, on the 3d of March, 1815, Congress passed an act offering to all natibns to admit their vessels laden with their national productions into the ports of the United States upon the same terms with our own vessels. pro> vided they would reciprocate to us similar advan tages. This act the reciprocity to the productions of the respective foreign nations who might enter into the proposed arrangement with United States.. The act of May 24,1828, removed this restriction, and offered a similar reciprocity to all such vessels without reference to the origin of their cargoes. Upon these principles, our com* , mercial treaties and arrangements have been foun- , ded, except with France; and let us hope that this exception may not exist. Our relations with Russia remain as they have ever been,—on the most friendly footing. The present Emperor, as well as his predecessors, have never failed, when the occasion offered, to mani fest their good will, to our oountry; and their friendship has always been highly appreciated by,, the goverement and people of the United States. With all other European governments, ex cept that of Spain, our relations are as peace ful as we could desire. I regret to say that no progress whatever has been made, since the adjournment of Congress, towards the settlement of any of the numerous claims of our citizens against the Spanish government. Besides, the outrage committed on our flag by the Spanish war frigate Ferrolana on the high seas, off the coast of Cuba, in March, 1851, by firing into the American mail steam er El Dorado, and detaining and searching her, remains acknowledged and nnredressed. The general tone and temper of the Spanish government towards that of the United States are much to be regretted. Our present en voy extraordinary and minister plenipoten tiary to Madrid has asked to be recalled ; and it is my purpose to send out a new minister to Spain, with special instructions on all questions pending between the two govern ments, and with a determination to have them speedily and amicably adjusted, if possible. In the meantime, whenever our- minister urges the just claims of our oitizens on the notioe of the Spanish government, he is met with the objection that Congress have never never made the appropriation recommended by President Polk in his annual niessage of December, 1847, “ to be paid to the Spanish government for the purpose of distribution in the Amistad case.” A similar recommen dation was made by his immediate predeces sor in his message of December, 1853 ; and entirely concurring with both in tlie opinion that this indemnity is justly dae under the treaty with Spain on the 26th October, 1795, I earnestly recommend an appropriation to the favorable consideration of Congress. A treaty of friendship and oommerce was concluded at Constantinople on the 13th De cember, 1856,between the United States and Persia, the ratifications of which were ex changed at Constantinople on the 13th June, 1857* and the treaty was proclaimed by the President on the 18th of August, 1857. This treaty, it is beleived, will prove beneficial to American commerce. The Shah has manifes ted an earnest disposition to cultivate friend ly relations with ourcountry, andhas expres sed a strong wish that we should be repre sented at Teheran by a Minister Plenipoten tiary ; and I recommend that an appropria tion be made for this purpose. ReceDt occurrences in China have been un favorable to a revision of the treaty with that empire of the 3d July, 1843, with aview to the security and extension of our com merce. The 24th article, of this treaty stip ulated for a revision of it, in oase experience should prove this to-be requisite ; “in which case the two governments will, at the expi ration of twelve years frdm the date of said convention, treat amicably concerning the same, by means of suitable persons appoint ed to conduct such negotiations.” These twelve years expired on the 3d of July, 1856; but long before that period it was ascertained that important changes in the treaty were necessary ; and several fruitless attempts were made by the commissioners of the United States to effect these changes. Another effort was about to be made for the same purpose by our commissioner, in conjunction with the ministers of England 1 and France, but this was suspended by the occurrence of hostilities in the Canton River between Great Britain and the Chinese Em ' pire. These hostilities have necessarily inter . rupted the trade of all nations with Canton, i which is now in a state of blockade, and ■ have occasioned a seriouß losb of life and ' property. Meanwhile the insurrection with i in the empire against the existing imperial dynasty still continues,'and it is difficult to anticipate what will be the result. Under theße ciroumstances, I have deemed 1 it advisable to appoint a distinguished oitizen of Pennsylvania Envoy Extraordinary and ! Minister Plenipotentiary to proceed to China, I and to avail himself of any opportunities which may offer to effect obange's in the ex ; isting treaty favorable to American oom ! merce. He left the United Stateß for the 1 place of his destination in July last, in the war steamer Minnesota. Speoial Ministers to China have been appointed by the govern- I ments of Great Britain aDd France. “Whilst our minister has been instructed to occupy a neutral position in reference to the existing hostilities at Canton, he will cordially co operate with the British and French ministers in all peaceful measures to secure by treaty stipulations those just con cessions to commerce which the nations of the world have a right to expect, and which China cannot long be permitted, to withhold. From assurances received, I entertain no doubt that the three ministers will act in harmonious concert to obtain similar com mercial treaties for eaoh of the powers they represent. We cannot fail to feel a deep interest in all that concerns the welfare of the independent republics on our own continent, as well of the empire of Brazil Our difficulties with New Grenada, which a short time since bore so threatening an as pect, are, it is to be hoped, in a fair train of settlement in a manner just and honorable to both parties. The Isthmus of Central America, including that of Panama, is the great highway between the Atlantio and Pacific, over which g. large portion of th« commerce of the world is destined to pass. The United States are more deeply interested than any other nation in preserving the freedom and security of all the communications across tbiß Isthmus. — It is our duty, therefore, to take care that they shall not be interrupted either by inva sions from our own country or by wars be tween tbe independent Stateß of Central America. Under our treaty with New Grenada of the 12th December, 1846, we are bound to guarantee the neutrality of the Isthmus of Panama, through which the Panama railroad passes, “ as well as the rights of sovereignty and property which New Granada has and possesses over the said Territory.” This obligation is founded upon equivalents grant ed by the treaty to the government and peo ple of the United States. Under these circumstances* I recommend to Congress the passage of an act authorizing the President, in case of necessity, to employ the land and naval forces of the United States to carry into effect this guarantee of neutrality and protection. I also recommend similar legislation for the security of any other route across the Isthmus in which we may acquire an interest by treaty. With the independent republics on this continent it is both onr duty and our interest to cultivate the most friendly rela tions. We can never feel indifferent to their fate, and must always rejoice in their pros perity, Unfortunately, both for them and for ns, our example and advice have lost much of their influence in consequence of the lawless expeditions which have been fit ted out against some of them within the lim its of our oountry. Nothing is better calcu- lated to retard our Bteady material progress, or impair our character as a Dation, than the toleration of such enterprises, in violation of the law of nations. It is one of the first and highest duties of any independent State, in its relations with the members of the great family of nations, to restrain its people from acts of hostile ag gression against their citizens or subjects.— The most eminent writers on public law do not hesitate to denounce such hostile acts as robbery and murder. Weak and feeble States, like those of Cen tral America, may not feel themselves able to assert and vindicate their rights. The case vonld be far different if expeditions were set on foot within our. own territories to make private war against a powerful na tion. If such expeditions were fitted ont from abroad against any portion of our own country, to burn down cities, murder and plunder our people, and usurp our govern ment, we should call any power on earth to the strictest account for not preventing such enormities. Ever since the administration of Gen Wash ington, acts of Congress have been in force-to punish severely the crime of setting on foot a military expedition within the limits of the U. States ; to proceed from thence against a nation or State with whom we are at peace. The present neutrality act of April 26, 1818, is but little more than a oolleotion of pre-ex isting laws. Under this act the President is empowered to employ the land and naval for ces and the militia “ for the purpose of pre venting the carrying on of any such expedi tion or enterprise from the territories and ju risdiction of the U. States,” ahd the collectors of customs are authorized and required to de tain any vessel in port when there is reason to believe she is about to take part in such lawless enterprises. When it was first rendered probable that an attempt would be made to get up another* unlawful expedition against Nicaragua, the Secretary of State issued instructions to the marshals and district attorneys, which were directed by the Secretaries of War and the Navy to the appropriate army and navy offi cers, requiring them to be vigilant and to use their best exertions in carrying into effect the act of 1818. Notwithstanding these precau tions, the expedition has escaped from our shores. Such enterprises can do no possible good to the country, but have already inflict ed much injury both on its interests and its character. They have prevented peaceable emigration from the United States to the States of Central America, which could not fail to be highly beneficial to ail the parties concerned. In a pecuniary point of view alone, our citizens have sustained heavy losses from the seizore and closing of the transit route by the San Juan between the two oceans. The leader of the recent expedition was arrested at New Orleans, but was discharged on giving bail for his appearance in the in sufficient sum of $2OOO. I commend the whole subject to the serious attention of Congress, believing that our duty and our interest, as well as our national character, require that we should adopt such measures as will be effectual in restraining our citizens from committing such outrages. I regret to inform you that the President of Paraguay has refused to ratify the treaty between the United States and that State as amended by the Senate, the- signature of which was mentioned in the message of my predecessor to Congress at the opening of its session in December, 1853. The reasons as signed for this refusal will appear in the correspondence herewith submitted. It being desirable to ascertain the fitness of the river La Plata and its tributaries for navigation by steam, the United States stea mer Water Witch was sent thither for that purpose in 1853. This enterprise was suc cessfully carried on until February, 1855, when, whilst in the peaceful prosecution of her voyage up the Parana river, the steamer was fired upon by a Paraguayan fort. The fire was returned ; but as the Water Witch was of small force, and not designed for of fensive operations, she retired from the con flict. The pretext upon which the attack was made was a decree of the President of Para guay of October, 1854, prohibiting foreign vesselß-of war from navigating the rivers of that State. As Paraguay, however, was the owner of one bank of the river of that name, the other belonging to Corrientes, a state of the Argentine Confederation, the right of its government to expect that such a decree would be obeyed cannot be acknowledged. But the Water Witch was not, properly speaking, a vessel-of-war. She was a small steamer en gaged in a scientific enterprise intended for the advantage of commercial States generally. Under these circumstances, I am constrained to consider the attack upon her as unjustifia ble, and as calling for satisfaction from the Paraguayan government. Citizens of the Unite! States, also, who were established in business in Paraguay, have had their property seized and taken from them, and have otherwise been treated by the authorities in an insulting and arbi trary manner, which requires redress. A demand for these purposes will be made in a firm but conciliatory spirit. This will the more particularly be granted if the Exec tive shall have authority to use other means in the event of a refusal. This is according ly reoommended. It is unnecessary to -state in detail the alarming condition of the Territory of Kan sas at the time of my inauguration. The opposing parties then stood in hostile array against eaoh other, and any acoident might have relighted the flames of civil war. -.Be sides, at this critical moment, Kansas was left without a governor by the resignation of Gov. Geary. On tbe 19th of February previous, the ter ritorial legislature had passed a law providing for the election of delegates on the third Mon day of June, to a convention to meet on the first Monday of September, for the purpose of framing a constitution preparatory to admis sion into the union. This law was in the main fair and jnst; and it is to be regretted that all the qualified electors had not regist ered themselves and voted under its provi sions. At the time of the election for delegates, an extensive organization existed in the Territory, whose avowed object it was, if need be, to put down the lawful government by force, and to establish a government of their own under the so-called Topeka consti tution. The persons attached to this revolu tionary organization abstained from taking any part in the election. The act of the territorial legislature had omitted to provide for submitting to the peo ple the constitution which might be framed by the convention; and in the excited state of public feeling throughout Kansas, an apprehension extensively prevailed that a design existed to force upon them a constitu tion in relation to slavery against their will. In this emergency it became my duty, as it was my unquestionable right, having in view the union of all good citizens in support of the territorial laws, to express an opinion on the true construction of the provisions con cerning slavery contained in the organic act of CongreßS.of the 30th May, 1854. Congress declared it to be “ the true intent and mean ing of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and domestic institutions in their own way.”— Under it Kansas, “ when admitted as a State,’ ’ was to “ be received into the Union, with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission.” Did Congress mean by this language that the delegates elected to frame a constitution should have authority finally to decide the question of slavery, or did they intend by leaving it to the people that the people of Kansas themselves should decide this ques tion by a direct vote ? On this subject I confess 1 had never entertained a serious doubt, and, therefore, in my instructions to Gov. Walker of the 28th March last, I merely said that when “ a constitution shall be sub-/ : mitted to the people of the Territory, they ! must be protected in the exercise of thepr l rights of voting for or against that Instrument, and the fair expression of the popular will I must not be interupted by fraud or violence.” In expressing this opinion it was far from 9 —BUCHANAN. my intention to interfere with the decision of the people of Kansas, either for or against slavery. From this I have always carefully abstained. Intrusted with the dnty of taking “care that the laws be faitUfally executed," my only desire was that the people of Kan sas should furnish to Congress the organic act, whether for or against slavery ; and in this manner smooth their passage into the Union. In emerging from the coadition of territorial dependence into that of a sovereign State, it was their duty, in my opinion, to make known their will by the votes of the majority, on the direct question whether this important domestio institution should or should not continue to exist. Indeed, this was the only possible mode in which their will could be authentically ascertained. The election of delegates to a convention must necessarily take place in separate dis tricts. From this cause it may readily hap pen, as has often been the case, that a majority of the people of a State or Territory are on one side of a question, whilst a majority of the representatives from the several districts into which it is divided maybe upon the ] other side. This arises from the fact that in , some districts delegates may be elected by I small majorities, whilst in others those of ■ different sentiments may receive majorities , sufficiently great not only to overcome the j votes given for the former, but to leave a t large majority of the whole people in direct opposition to a majority of the delegates. — Besides, our history proves that influences may be brought to bear on the representative sufficiently powerful to induce him to disre gard the will of his constituents. The truth is, that no other authentic and satisfactory mode exists of ascertaining the will of a ma jority of the people of any State or Territory on an important and exoiting question like that of slavery in Kansas, except by leaving it to a direct Vote. How wi3e, theD, was it for Congress to pass over all subordinate and intermediate agencies, and proceed directly to the source of all legitimate power under our institutions ? How vain would any other principle prove in practice ! This may be illustrated by the oase of Kansas. Should she be admitted into the Union, with a constitution either maintain ing or abolishing slavery, against the senti ment of the people, this could have no other effect than to continue and to exasperate the exciting agitation during the brief period re quired to make the constitution conform to the irresistible will of the majority. The friends and supporters of the Nebraska and Kansas act, when struggling on a recent .occasion to sustain its wise provisions before -the great tribunal of the American people, never differed about its true meaning on this subject. Everywhere throughout the Union they publicly pledged their faith and their honor, that they would cheerfully submit the question of slavery to the decistyn of the bona fide people of Kansas, without any restriction or qualification whatever. All were cordially united upon the great doctrine of popular sov ereignty, which is the vital principle of our free institutions. Had it then been insinuated from any quar ter that it would be a sufficient compliance with the requisitions for the organic law for the members of a convention, thereafter to be elected, to withhold the question of slavery from the people, and to substitute their own "will for that of a legally ascertained majority of all their constituents, this would have beeu instantly rejected. Everywhere they remain ed true to the resolution adopted on a celebra ted occasion recognizing “the right of the peo ple of all the Territories—including Kansas and Nebraska —acting through the legally and fairly-expressed will of a majority of actual residents, and whenever the number of their inhabitants, justifies it, to form a constitution, with or without slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other States.” The couvention to frame a constitution for Kansas met on the first Monday of Septem ber last. They were called together by vir tue of an act of the territorial legislature, whose lawful existence had been recognised by Congress in different forms and by differ ent enactments. A large proportion of the citizens of Kansas did not think proper to register their names and to vote at the elec tion, for delegates ; but an opportunity to do this having been fairly afforded, their refusal to avail themselves of their right could in no manner affect the legality of the convention. This convention proceeded to frame a con stitution for Kansas, and finally adjoarnedjm the 7th day of November. But little diffi culty occurred in the convention, except on the subject of slavery. The truth is that the general provisions of our recent State consti tutions are so similar—and, I may add, so excellent—that the difference between them is not essential. Under the earlier practice of the Government, no constitution framed by the convention of a territory preparatory to its admission into the Union as a Staje had been submitted to the people. I trust, however, the example set by the last Congress, requiring that the Constitution of Minnesota, “should be subject to the approval and ratification of the people of tho proposed State,” may be followed on future oooasions. I took it for granted that the convention of Kansas would aot in accordance with this example, founded, as it is, od oorreot principles ; and hence my instructions to Gov. Walker, in favor of submitting the con stitution to the people, were expressed in general and unqualified terms. In the Kansas Nebraska act, however, this requirement, as applicable to the whole con stitution, had not been inserted, and the convention were not bound by its terms to submit any other portion of the instrument to an election, except that which relates to the “ domestio institution” of slavery. This will be rendered clear by a simple reference to its language. It was “ not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way." According to the plain construction of the sentence, the wordß “ domestic institutions” have a direct as they have an appropriate reference to slavery. “ Domestic institu tions” are limited to the family. The rela tion between master and slave and a few others are “ domestic institutions," and are entirely distinct from institutions of a politi cal character. Besides, there was no question then before Congress, nor indeed has there since been any serious question before the people of Kansas or the country, except that which relates to the “domestic institution” of slavery. The convention, after an angry and excited debate, finally determined, by a. majority of only two, to submit the question of slavery to the people, though at the last, forty-three of the fifty delegates present affixeed tbir signatures to the constitution. A large majority of the Convention were in favor of establishing slavery In Kansas. They accordingly inserted an article iu the Constitution for this purpose similar in form to these which bad been adopted by other territorial Conventions. In the schedule, how ever, providing for tlie transition from a territorial to a State government, the question has been fairly and explicitly referred to the people, whether they will have a constitution “'with or without Klavery.” It de clares that, before thexonstitutiou adopted by the Con vention “shall be sent to Congress for admission into the Union as a State,” an election shall be held to de cide this question, at which all the white male inhabi tants of the Territory, above the age of 21, are entitled to vote. They are to vote by ballot: and “the ballots cast at said election shall be endorsed 'constitution with slavery,’ and’eonstitution with noslarery.’ ” If there be a majority in favor of the “constitution with sla very,” then it is to be transmitted to Congress by the President of the Convention in its original form. If, on the contrary, there sha’l be a majority in favor of the “constitution with no slavery,” “then the article pro viding for slavery shall be stricken from the constitu tion by tbe President of this convention:” and It is ex pressly declared that “no slavery shall exist in the State of Kansas, except that the right of property in slaves now in the Territory shall In no manner be in terfered withand in that event it is made bisduty to have the constitution thns ratified transmitted to the Congress of the United States for the admission of the State into the Union. At this election every citizen will have an opportuni ty of expressing his opinion by his vote ‘whether Kansas shall be receivedHnto the Union with or with out slavery,” and thns this exciting question may be peacefully settled in the very mode required by the organic law. The election will be held under legiti mate authority, and if any portion of the inhabitants -shall refuse to vote, a fair opportunity to do so having beenpresented, this will be their own voluntary act, and they alone will be responsible for the consequen ces. Whether Kansas shall be a free or a slave State must eventually, under some authority, be decided by an election: and the question can never be more clearly or distinctly presented to tbe people than it is at the present moment. Should this opportunity be rejected, ■he may be involved for yean in domestio discord, and possibly In civil war, before she can *gA|n makeup tbe Issue now so unfortunately tendered, and again reach the point she has already attained. Kansas has for some years occupied too much of the publio attention. It is high time this' should be directed to far more important objects. When once admitted into the Union, whether with or without slavery, the excitement beyond her own limits will speedily pass away, and she will then for the first time be left, as she ought to have been long since, to manage her own affairs in her own way. If her constitution on the subject of slavery or any other subject, be displeasing to a majority of the people, no human power can prevent them from changing it within a brief period. Under these circumstances, it may well be questioned whether the peace and quiet of the whole country are not of greater imjfSrtance than the mere tem porary triumph of either of the political parties in Kansas. Should the constitution without slavery be adopted by the votes of the majority, the rights of property in slaves now in the Territory are re served. The number of these is very small; but if it were greater the provision would be equally just and reasonable. These slaves were brought the Territory under the constitution of the United States, and are now the property of their masters. This point has at length been finally deoided by the highest judicial tribunal of the country—and this upon the plain principle that when a confeder acy of sovereign States ooquire a new territory at their joint expense, both equality and justice de mand that the citizens of one and all of them shall have the right to take into it whatsoever is recog nized as property by the common constitution. To have summarily confiscated the property in slaves already in the Territory, would have been an aot of gross injustice, and contrary to the practice of the older States of the Union whioh have abolished slavery. A territorial government was established for Utah by act of Congress approved the 9th Septem ber, 1850, and the Constitution aud laws of the United States were thereby extended over it “ so far as the same, or any provisions thereof, may be applicable.” The act provided for 1 the appoint ment by the President, by and with tbe advice and consent of tbe Senate of a governor, who was to ex-office superintendent of Indian Affairs, a Sec retary, three Judges of the Supreme Court, a Mar shal, and a district attorney. Subsequent act pro vided for the appointment of tho officers necessary to extend our land and our Indian system over the Territory Brigham Young was apppinted the first governor on the 20th of September 1850, and held the office ever since. Whilst Governor Young has been both governor and superintendent of Indian affairs throughout this period, he has been at the same time the head of the church call ed the Latter-Day Saints, and professes to govern its members and dispose of their property by di rect inspiration and authority from the Almighty. His power has been, therefore, absolute over both Church and State. Tho people of Utah, almost exclusively, belong to his church, and believing with a fanatical spirit that he is governor of the Territory by divine ap pointment, they obey his commands as if these were direct revelations from Heaven. If, therefore, he chooses that his government shall come into collison with the government of the United States, the members of the Mormon church will yield implicit obedience to his will. 4 Unfortunately, existing facts leave but little donbts that such is his determination. Without entering upon a minute historyof occurrences, it is sufficient to say that all the officers of the United States, judicial and executive, with the single ex ception of two Indian agents, have found it neces sary for their own personal safety to withdraw from the Territory, and there no longer remains any government in Utah but the despotism of Brigham YouDg. This being the condition of affairs In the Territory, I could not mistake the path of duty.— As Chief Executive Magistrate I was bound to re store the supremacy of the constitution and laws within its limits. In order to effect this purpose, I appointed a new Governor and other federal offi cersfor Utah, and sent with them a military force for their protection, and aid as a posse comitatus. iu case of need, in the execution of the laws. * With the religious opinions of the Mormons, as long as they remained mere opinions, however de plorable in themselves and revolting to the moral and religious sentiments of all Christendom, I had no right to interfere. Actions alone, when in vio lation of the constitution and laws of tho United States, become the legitimate subjects for the ju risdiction of the civil magistrate. My instructions to Governor Cummings have therefore been framed in strict accordance with these principles. At their date a hope was indulged that no necessi ty might exist for employing the military in re storing and maintaining tbe authority of the law; but this hope has now vanished. Governor Young has by proclamation, declared his determination to maintain his power by force, and has already com mitted acts of hostility against the United States. Unless he should retrace his steps the Territory of Utah will be in a state of open rebellion. He has committed these acts of hostility notwithstanding Major Van Vliet, an officer of the army, sent to Utah by tho commanding general to purchase pro visions for tbe troops, has given him the strongest assurances of the peaceful intentions of the govern ment, and that the troops would only be employed as a posse comitatus when called on by the oivil authority to aid in the execution of the laws. There is reason to believe that Gov. Young has long contemplated this result. He knows that the continuance of his despotic power depends upon the exclusion of nil settlers from the Territory ex cept those who will acknowledge his divine mis sion and implicity obey his will; and that an en lightened public opinion there would soon pros* trate institutions at war with the laws both of God andman. He has, therefore, for several years, in order to maintain hts independence, been indus triously employed in collecting and fabricat ing arm 9 and munitions of war, and in disciplining the Mormons for military servioe. As Superin tendent of Indian Affairs, he has had an opportuni ty oftnmpering with the Indiun tribes, and ex citing their hostile feelings against the United States. This, according to our information he has accomplished in regard to some of these tribes, while others have remained true to their allegiance, and have communioated his In trigues lo our Indian Agents. He has laid in a store of provisions for three years, which, in oase of necessity, as be informed Major Van Vliet, he will ooDceal “and then take to the mountains, and bid defiance to all the power of the government." A great part of this may be idle boasting ; but yet no wise government will lightly esti mate the efforts which may be inspired by such phrensied fanticism as exists among the Mormons in Utah. This is the first rebellion which has existed in our Territories ; and hu manity itself requires that we should put it down in such a manner that it shall be the last. To trifle with it would be to encourage it, and to render it foreiidable. We ought to go there with such an imposing force as to convince these deluded people that resistance would be vain, and thus spare the effusion of blood. We can in this manner best convince them that w.e are their friends, not their enemies.— In order to accomplish this object it will be necessary, according to the estimate of tho War Department, to raise four additional regi ments ; and this I earnestly recommend to Congress. At the present moment of depres sion in the revenues of the country, I am sorry to be obliged to recommend such a measure ; but I feel confident of the support of Congress, coat what it may, in suppressing the insurrec tion and in restoring and maintaining the sovereignty of the constitution and laws over the Territory of Utah. I recommend to Congress the establishment of a territorial government over Arizona, incorporation with it such portions of New Mexico as they may deem expedient. I need scarcely adduce argu ments in support of this recommendation. We are bound to protect the lives and property of our Cit izens inhabiting Arizona, and these are bow with out efficient protection. Their present number.is already considerable, and is rapidly increasing, notwithstanding the disadvantages under which they labor. Besides, the proposed Territory is be lieved to be rich in mineral and agricultural re sources, especially in silver and copper. The mails of the United States to California are now carried over it throughout its whole extent, and this route is known to be tbe nearest, and believed to be the best to the Pacific. Long experience has deeply convinced me that a strict construction of the powers granted to Congress is the only true, as well as the only safe theory of the constitution. Whilst this principle shall guide my public conduct, I consider it clear that under the war making power Congress may appropriate mosey for the construction of a mili tary road through the Territories of the United States, when this is absolutely necessary for the defence of any of the States against foreign in vasion. The Constitution . has conferred upon Congress power to “ declareiwar,” “to raise and support armies," “to proride and maintain a navy," and to call forth the militia to “repel inva sions.” These high foreign powers necessarily in volve important and responsible public duties, and among them there is none so sacred and so imper ative as that of preserving our soil from the inva sion of a foreign enemy. The constitution has therefore, left nothing on this point to contrac tion, but expressly, requires that “ the United States shall proteot eaoh of them [the States] against invasion." Now, if a military road over our own Territories be indispensably necessary to enable us to meet and repel the it follows as a necessary consequence not only that we pos (concluded 0s fwbtb pigs.)
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers