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.)