BY S. B. HOW.
CLEARFIELD, PA., WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1857.
VOL. 4.-JTO. 17.
FIRST ANNUAL .MESSAGE OF
JAMES BUCHANAN.
delivered on Tuegicy, lee. 3, 1357.
h'tllow-Citiztns of the Setiatt and House of Rep
reseulativtt :
In obedience to (lie command of the consti
tution, it has now become my duty "to give to
Congress information ot the State of the Union,
and lecotnuiend to their consideration audi
measures" as I judge to bo "necessary und ex
pedient." But first, and above all, our thanks are doe
to Almighty God for the numerous benefits
which lie has bestowed upon this people; and
our united prayers ought to ascend to Him that
lie would continue to bless ourgreat Republic
in time to come, as lie blessed it in time past.
Since the adjournment of the last Congress
uur constituents have enjoyed au unusual de
gree of health. The earth has yielded her
iruits abundantly, ;:ud lias. bountifully rewar
ded tho toil of the husbandman. Our great
tuples have commanded high prices,, and, up
till within a brief period, our manufacturing,
mineral, and mccii.Uiical occupations . have
largely partaken of tho general prosperity.
TTe have possessed all the elements of mate
rial wealth in rich abundance.nnd yet, notwith
standing all these advantages, our country, in
Its monctaiy interests, is at the present mo
ment in a deplorable couduion. In the midst
of unsurpassed plenty in all the productions
of agriculture and in all the elements of nation
al wealth, we liud our manufactures suspended,
o;ir public works retarded, our private enter
prises of di He re lit kinds abandoned, and thou
sands of useful laborers thrown out ot em
ployment and reduced to want. The revenue
vf the government, which 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 liscal year are very large in amount.
Under these circumstances a loan may be
required before the close of tho present session,
but this, although deeply to be regretted,
would prove to be only a slight misfortune
when compared with the suffering and distress
prevailing among the people. With this the
government cannot fail deeply to sympathize,
though it way be without ti.e power to extend
ielief.
It is our duty to inquire what has produced
euch unfortunate results, and whether their
recurrence can be prevented? In all former
f evulsions the blame might have been fairly
uttributedto a variety ot co-operating causes ;
lut not so upon the present occasion. It is
tppjtcnt that our existing misfortunes have
I roceeded solely from our extravagant and
vicious system of paper currency ai.d bank,
credits, exciting the people to wild speculation
end gambling in stocks. These revulsions
must coutiuuo to recur at successive intervals,
bj long as the amour.t of 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 tl.eir nature will consult the in
terest of thoirstoek-hjklers rather than the pub
lic welfare.
The fra tilers of tho Constitution, when they
gave to Congress the power '-to coin money
nd regulate the value thereof," and prohibi
ted the States trom coining money, emitting
tills of credit, or making anything hut gold
i.nd silver coin a tender in payment of debts,
supposed they had protected the people against
tho evils of an excessive ar.d irrodeemablj
piper currency. Thevars not responsible for the
existing anomaly that a government endowed
with the sovereign attribute of coining money
and regulating the val'.:e thereof, should have
no power to prevent others from driving this
coin cut ot the country and filling tip the
channels of circulation with paper, which does
not represent gold and silver.
Jt is one of the highest ar.d most responsi
ble duties of government to insure to the peo
ple 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 and foreign exchanges. If this
be cither greatly above or greatly below the
proper standard," the marketable value of eve
ry man's ptoperty is increased or diminished
In the same proportion, and justice to individ
uals, as well as incalculable evils to the com
munity, are the consequence.
Unfortunately, under the construction of the
federal constitution, which has now prevailed
too long to be changed, this important and del
icate duty has been dissevered from the coin
ing power, and virtually transferred to more
than fourteen hundred State banks, acting in
dependently of each other.and regulating their
paper issues almost exclusively by a regard to
the present interest of their stockholders. Ex
orcising the sovereign power of providing a
paper currency, instead of coin, for the coun
try, the first duty which these banks owe to the
public is to keep in their vaults a sufficient a
inount of gold and silver to insure, theconver
tibilitv of their notes into coin at all times and
under all circumstances. No bank ought ever
to bo chartered without such restrictions on its
All other j
v.iisiTie'i as to secure this result.
restrictions are comparatively vain. This is
the onlv true touchstone,thc only efficient reg
ulator of a J ia per currency the only one which
can guard tho public against over-issues and
bank suspensions. As a collateral and even
tual security, it is doubtless wise, and in all
cases ought to be required, that banks shall
hold an amount of United States or State se
curities equal to their notes in circulation and
pledged for their redemption. This, however,
fur.ifshes no adequate security against over
issues. On the contrary, it may be perverted
to inflate the currency. Indeed, it is possible
bv this means to convert all the debts of the
Uniicfl States and State governments into
Unk notes.without reference to tli- specie re
quired to redeem them. However valuable
these securities may be in themselves, the)
cannot be converted into gold and silver at the
tn,T,t .. ..wKMire. as our experience teacnr
cs, in sufficient time to prevent bank suspen
sions and the depreciation of bank notes, in
Ensland, which is to a considerable extent a
paper-money country, though vastly behind
our own in this respect, it was deemed ad is.i
ble, anterior to the act of Parliament ot 16
which wisely sepented the issue of notes from
the banking department, for the Bank of Lng
land always to keep on hand gold and silver e
qual to one-third of its combined circulation
and deposits. II this proportion was no more
than sufficient to secure the convertability of
Its notes, with the whole of Great Britain, and
to some extent the Continent of Europe, as a
field for its circnlation, rendering it almost im
possible that a sudden and immediate run to a
dangerous amount should be made npon it,tho
same proportion would cert inly be sufficient i
under our banking system. Each ol our four
teen hundred banks has but a limited circum
ference for its circulation, and 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 liabilities.
And yet I am not aware, with the exception
of tho banks of Louisiana, that any State bank
throughout the Union has been required by its
charter to keep this or any other proportion of
gold and silver compared with tho amount of
its combined circulation and depositcs. What
has been the consequence ? In a recent re
port made by the Treasury Department on the
condition of the banks throughout the differ
ent States, according to rcturrs dated nearest
January, 18-57, the aggregate amount of spe
cie in their vaults is $08,849,838 ; ot their cir
culation $21 4,778.822, aud of their depositcs
5230 .351,352. Thus it appears that these
banks in the aggregate have considerably less
than one dollar in seven of gold and silver
compared with their circulation and deposits.
It was palpable, therefore, that the very lirst
pressure must drive them to suspension, aud
deprive the people of a convertible currency,
with ail its disastrous consequences. It is
truly wonderful that they should have so long
continued to preserve their credit, when a de
mand for the payment of one-seventh of their
immediate liabilities would have driven them
into insolvency. And this is the condition of
the banks, notwithstandihg 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 extravagance of hank credits, that
the banks now hold a considerable less amount
of sjccie, cither in proportion to the amount
of their capital or to their circulation and de
positcs combined, than they did before the
discovery of gold in California. Whilst in
the year 181S their specie in proportion to
their capital was more than equal to one dol
laa for four and a half, in 1857 it does not a
liicuut to one dollar for every six dollars and
thirty-three cents of their capital. In the
year 18 13 the specie was equal within a very
sr.i.dl fraction to one dollar in five of their cir
culation and depositcs ; in 1807 it is not equal
to one dollar in seven aud a half of their cir
culation and depoiites.
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 ru
inous contractions. At successive intervals
the lest and most enterprising men have been
tempted to their rnin by excessive bank loans
of more paper credit, exciting them to extrav
agant importations of foreign good, wild spec
ulations, and ruinous and demoralizing stocK
gambling. When the crisis arrives, as arrive
it must, the banks can extend no relief to the
people. In a vain struggle to redeem their li
abilities ia specie, they are compelled to con
tract their loans and their issues ; and at last,
in the hour of distress, when their assistance
is most needed, they and their debtors togeth
er sink into insolvency. It is this paper sys
tem of extravagant expansion, raising the nom
inal price of every article far beyond its real
value, when compared with the cost of similar
articles in countries whose circulation is wise
ly regulated, which has prevented us from
c .mpeting in our own markets with foreign
m anufacturers, has produced extravagant im
portations, and has counteracted the effect of
the large incidental ptotection afforded to our
domestic manufactures by the present, revenue
tariff. But for this the branches of our manu
factures composed of raw materials, the pro
ductions of our own country such as cotton,
iron, and woollen fabrics would not only have
acquired almost exclusive possession of the
home market, but would have created for them
selves a foreign market throughout the world.
Deplorable, however, as may be onr present
financial condition, we may yet indulge in
bright hopes for the future. No other nation
has ever existed which could have endured
such violent expansions and contractions of
paper credits without lasting injury; yet the
buoyancy of youth, the enctgit s of our popu
lation, and the spirit which never quails be
fore difficulties, will enable us soon to recover
from our present financial embarrassment, and
may even occasion us speedily to forget tho
k'sson which they have taught.
In the mean time it is the duty of the gov
ernment, by all proper means within its power,
to aid in alleviating the sufferings of the peo
ple, occasioned by the suspension of the banks,
and to provide against a 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 paymcnt,"as it was compelled to do
by the failure of the banks in bo7. It will
continue to discharge its liabilities to the peo
ple in gold and silver. Its disbursements in
coin will pass into circulation, and materially
assist in restoring a sound currency. From
its hiih credit, should we be compelled to
make a temporary loan, it can be affected ou
! - 1 ...... ......iu ' I 1 1 c luiivnviir cn;IM II
possible, he avoided ; but, if not, then the a
inount shall be limited to the lowest practica
ble sum.
I have, therefore, determined that whilst no
useful government works already in progress
shall be suspended, new works, not already
commenced, will be postponed, if this can be
done without injury to the country. Those
necessatv for its defence shall ploceed as tho
there hud been no crisis in our monetary af
fairs. But fhe federal government cannot do much
to provide against a recurrence of eiisting
..vils. Kven if insurmountable constitutional
objections did not exist against the creation of
a National Bank, this would furnish no ade
quate preventive security. The history of the
last Bank of the United States abundantly
proves the truth of this assertion. Such a
bank could not. if it would, regulate the issues
and credits of fourteen hundred State banks
in such a manner as to prevent the ruinous
expansions and contractions in our enrrency
which afflicted the country throughout the ex
istence of the late bank, or secure us against
future suspensions. In 1825 art effort was
S.de bv the Bank of England to curtail the
issues of the country banks under the most
favorable circumstances. The paper currency
.,. i..,.n .Ti,.mdcd to a ruinous extent, and
UUU ovt" ' 1
he Bank put forth all its power to contract in
, J.a. r,M and restore tho equili-
It accord
brilim Ol UIO '. rfimnt ,.f
inely commenced a system v
Sloans and issues, in the n t .ope . tbat th.
joint-stock and private imm. - "
would be compelled to follow its example. It
found, however, that as it contracted they ex
panded, and at the end of the process, to em
ploy the language of a very high official au
thority, "whatever reduction of the paper cir
culation was effected by the Bank of England
(in 182-5) was more than made up by the is
sues of the country hanks."
But a Bank of the United States would not,
if it could, restrain the issues and loans of the
State banks, because its duty as a regulator of
the currency must often be in direct conflict
with the immediate interest of its stockhold
ers. If we expect one agent to restrain or
control another, their interest must, at least in
some degree, be antagonistic. But the direc
tors of a bank of the Uni:ed States would feel
the same interest and the same inclination with
the directors of the State banks to expand the
currency, to accommodate their favorites and
friends with loans, and to declare large divi
dends. Such has been our experience in re
gard to the last bank.
After all, we must mainly rely npon the pa
triotism and wisdom of the States tor the pre
vention and redress of the evil. If they will
afford us a real specie basis for our paper cir
culation by increasing the denomination of
banknotes, 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 dol
lar of gold and silver for every three dollars
of their circulation and deposits; and if they
will provide by a self-executing enactment,
which nothing can arrest, that the moment
they suspend they shall go intj liquidation, I
believe that such provisions, with a weekly
publication by each banx of a statement of its
condition, would go far to secure us against fu
ture suspension of specie payments.
Congress, in my opinion, possesses the pow
er to pass a uniform bankrupt law, applicable
to all banking institutions throughout the U
nited States, and I strongly recommend its ex
ercise. This would make it the irreversable
orginic law of each bank's existence, that a
susj ensioa of specie payments shall produce
its civil death. The instinct of self preserva
tion would then compel it to perform its duties
in such a manner as to escape the penalty and
preserve its life.
The evistence of banks and the circnlation
of bank paper are so identified with the habits
of our people, that they cannot at this day be
suddenly abolished without much immediate
injury to the country. If we would confine
them to their appropriate sphere, and prevent
them from administering to the spirit of wild
and reckless speculation by extravagant loans
and issues, they might be continued with ad
vantage to the public.
But this I say, after much reflection, if ex
perience shall prove it to be impossible to en
joy the facilities which well regulated banks
might afford, without at the same time suffer
ing tho calamities which the excess of the
banks have hitherto inflicted upon the country,
it would then be far the lesser evil to deprive
them altogether of the power to issue a paper
currency andconflne them to the functions of
banks of depositc and discount.
Our relations with foreign governments are,
upon the whole, in a satisfactory condition.
The diplomatic difticuties which existed be
tween 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 country, who has been cordially re
ceived. Whilst it is greatly to the interest, as I am
convinced it is the sincere desire, of the gov
ernment and people of the two countries to be
on terms of intimate friendship with each
other, it has leen our misfortune almost al
ways to have had somo irritating, if not dan
gerous, outstanding question with Great Bri
tain. 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, 18-50, commonly called
the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, has been the
most unfortunate of all ; because the two gov
ernments place directly opposite and contra
dictory constructions upon its first and most
important article. While in the United States,
we believed that this treaty would place both
powers upon an exact equality by the stipula
tion that neither will ever "ocupy, or fortify,
or colonize, or assume or exercise any domin
ion" over, any part of Central America, it is
contended 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 ot the United Slates of the right
of Great Britain, either as owner or protector,
to the whole extensive coast of Central Amer
ica, sweeping round from the Rio Hondo to
the port and harbor of San Juan de Nicaragua,
together with the r.djaccnt Bay Islands, except
the comparatively small portion of this be
tween the Sarstoon and Cape Honduras. Ac
cording to their construction, tho treaty does
no more than simply prohibit them from ex
tending 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 author
ity of the President, nor would it have receiv
ed the approbation of the Senate. The uni
versal 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 doubt the
sinceritv 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 purposo, if possible, of removing these
difficulties; and a treaty having this laudable
object in view was signed at London on the
17th October, 1850, and was submitted by the
President to the Senate on the following 10th
of December. Whether this treaty, cither in
its original or amended form, would have ac
complished the object intended without giv
ing birth to new and embarrassing complica
tions between the two governments, may per
haps bo well questioned. Certain it is, how
ever, ft 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 trans
mitted to London for ratification by the Brit
ish government. That government expressed
its willingness to concur in all the amendments
made by the Senate, with the single exception
of the clause relating to 11 n at an and the other
islands in the bay of Honduras. The article
in the original treaty, as submitted to the Sen
ate, after reciting that these islands and their
inhabitants "having been by a convention
bearing date the 27th day of August, 1856, be
tween her Britannic Majesty and the republic
of Honduras, constituted and declared a free
territory under the sovereignty of the said re
public of Honduras," stipulated that"tNs two
contracting parties do hereby mutually engage
to recognize and respect in all future time the
independence and rights of the said free terri
tory as a part of the republic of Honduras."
Upon an examination of this convention be
tween Great Britain and Honduras of the 27th
August, 1856, it was found that, whilst declar
ing the Bay Islands to b "a free territory un
der the sovereignty of the Republic of Hon
duras," it deprived that republic of rights,
without which its sovereignty over them could
scarcely be said to exist. It divided them
from the remainder of Honduras, and gave to
their inhabitants a seperate government of
their own, with legislative, execntive, and ju
dicial officers elected by themselves. It de
prived the government of Honduras of the
taxing power in every form, and exempted the
people of the Islands from the performance of
hiilitary duty except for their own exclusive
defence. It also prohibited that republic from
erecting fortifications upon them for their pro
tection thus leaving them open to invasion
from any quarter ; and, finally, it provided
"that slavery shalltiot at any time hereafter
be permitted to exist therein."
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 Brit
ish influence and control. Moreover, had the
United States ratified the treaty with Great
Britain in its original form, we should have
been bound "to recognise and respect in all
future time" these stipulations to the prejudice
of Honduras. Being in direct opposition to
the spirit and meaning of the Clayton and Bul
wer treaty as understood in the United States,
the Senate rejected the entire clause, and sub
stituted in its stead n simple recognition of the
sovereign right of Honduras to these islands
in the following language : "The two contract
ing parties do hereby mutually engage to rec
ognise and respect the islands of Kuatan, Bon
aco, Utila, Barbaretta, Helena, and Morat, sit
uate iu the Bay of Honduras, and off the coast
of the republic of Honduras, as under the
sovereignty aud as part of the said republic of
Honduras."
Great Britain rejected this amendment, as
signing as the only reason, that the ratifica
tions of tho convention of the 27th August,
185G, between her aud Honduras, had not been
"exchanged, owing. to the hesitation of that
government." Had this been done, it is stat
ed that "her Majesty's government would have
had little difficulty in agreeing to the modifi
cation proposed by the Senate, which then
would have had in effect the same signification
as the original wording." Whether this would
have been the effect ; whether the mere cir
cumstances of the exchange of the ratifications
of the British convention with Honduras prior
in point of time to the ratification of our treaty
with Great Britain would, "in effect," have
had "the same significations as the original
wording," and thus have nullified the amend
ment ot the Senate, may well be doubted. It
is, perhaps, fortunate that the question has
never arisen.
The British government, immediately after
rejecting the treaty as amended, proposed to
enter into a new treaty with the United States,
similar in all respects to the treaty wbich 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 as the republic of Honduras shall have
concluded and ratified a treaty with Great
Britain, by which Great Britain shall have ce
ded, and the republic of Honduras shall have
accepted, the said islands, subject to the pro
visions and conditions contained in such
treaty."
This proposition was, of course, rejected.
After the Senate had refused to recognise the
British convention with Ilondmas of the 27th
August, 185G, with full knowledge of its con
tents, it was impossible for me, necessarily ig
norant 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
Britanandthe United States, mutually desir
ous as they are, and I trust may ever be, of
maintaining tho most friendly relations with
each other, have unfortunately concluded a
treaty which they understand in senses direct
ly opposite, the wisest course is to abrogate
such a treaty by mutual consent, 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 tho meaning of
the Clayton and Bulwer treaty would have
been devoted to this praiseworthy purpose,
and the task would have been tho more easily
accomplished because the interest of the two
countries in Central America is identical, be
ing confined to securing safe transits over all
the routes across the Isthmus.
Whilst entertaining these sentiments, I
shall nevertheless not refuse to contribute to
any reasonable adjustment of the Central A
nierican questions which is not practically in
consistent with the American interpretalon
of the treaty. Overtures for this purpose have
been recently made by tho British government
in a friendly spirit which I cordially recipro
cate ; but whether this renewed effort will re
sult in success I am not yet prepared to ex
press an opinion. A brief period will deter
mine. .
With France our ancient relations of friend
ship still continue to exist. . The French gov
ernment have in several recent instances which
need not be enumerated, evinced a spirit of
good will and kindness towards our country
which I hartily reciprocate. It is, notwitstan
ding, much to be regretted that two nations
whose productions are of such a character as
to invite ; the most extensive exchanges and
freest commercial intercourse, bhonld contin
ue to enforce ancient and obsolete rcstiiction?
of trade against each other. Ourcommercial
treaty with France is in this respect an excep
tion from our treaties with all other commer
cial nations. Its jealousy levies discriminat
ing 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 March,
1815, Congress passed an act offering to all na
tions to admit their vessels laden with their
national productions into the ports of the U
nited States upon the same terms with our
own vessels, provided they would reciprocate
to us similar advantages. This act confined
the reciprocity to the productions of the res
pect ivqforcign nations who might enter into
the proposed arrangement with the U. States.
The act of May Hi, 1828, removed this restric
tion, and offered a similar reciprocity to all
such vessels without reference to the origin of
their cargoes. Upon these principles, our
commercial treaties and arrangements have
been founded, except with France ; and let us
hope that this exception may not long exist.
Our relations with Russia remain, as they
have ever been, on the most friendly footing.
The present Emperor, as well as his predeces
sors, have never failed, when the occasion of
fered, to manifest their good will to our coun
try ; and th6ir friendship has always been
highly appreciated by the gevernment and
people of the United States.
With all other European governments, ex
cept that of Spain, our relat ions 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 settle
ment ot any of the numerous claims of our ci
tizens against the Spanish government. Be
sides, the outrage committed on our flag by
the Spanish war frigate Ferrol.u:a, on the high
seas, off the coast of Cuba, in March, 1855, by
firing into the Americal mail steamer El Dora
do, and detaining and searching her, remains
unacknowledged and unredressed. The geu
eral tone and temper of the Spanish govern
ment towards that of the United States are
much to be regretted. Our present envoy ex
traordinary and minister plenipotentiary 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 pen
ding between the two governments, aud with a
deleimination to have them speedily and ami
cably adjusted, if this be possible. In the
mean time, whenever our minister urges the
just claims of our citizens on the notice of the
Spanish government, he is met with the objec
tion that Congress have never made the appro
priation recommended by President Polk in
his annual message of Dec. 1847, "to be paid
to the Spanish government for the purpose of
distribution among the claimants in the Amis
tad case." A similar recommendation was
made by mv immediate predecessor in his
message of December, 1853 ; and entirely con
curring with both in the opinion that this in
demnity is justly due under the treaty with
Spain of Oct. 27, 1705, I earnestly recommend
such an appropriation to the favorable consid
eration of Congress.
A treaty of friendship and commerce was
concluded at Constantinople on the ICth De
cember, 1S56, between the Ucited 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 18tb August, 1857. This
treaty, it is believed, will prove beneficial to
American commerce. The Shah has manifes
ted an earnest disposition to cultivate friendly
relations with our country, and has expressed
a strong wish that we should be represented at
Teheran, by a minister plenipotentiary ; ami I
recommend that an appropriation be made for
this purpose.
Recent occurrences in China have been un
favorable to a revision of the treaty with that
empire of the 3d July, 1844, with a view to
the security and extension of our commerce.
The 24th article of this treaty stipulated for a
revision of it, in case experience should prove
this to be requisite, "iu which case the two
governments will, at the expiration of twelve
years from the date of said convention, treat
amicably concerning the same, by means of
suitable persons appointed to conduct such
negotiations. -' These twelve yeais exj lred on
the 3d July, 185l ; but l"ng before that period
it was ascertiined that important changes in
the treaty were necessary ; and tever.il fruit
less attempts were made by the commissioner
of the United States to effect these changes.
Another effort was about to ba made for the
same purpose by our commissioner, in con
junction with thj ministers of England and
France, but this was suspended by the occur
rence ot hostilities in the Canton river be
tween Great Britain and the Chinese Empire.
These hostilities have necessarily interrupted
the trade of all nations with Canton, which is
now in a state of blockade, and have occasion
ed a serious loss of life and property. Mean
while the insurrection within the empire a
gainst the existing imperial dynasty still con
tinues, and it is difficult to anticipate what
will be the result.
Under these circumstances, I have deemed
it advisable to appoint a distinguished citizen
of Pennsylvania envoy extraordinary and min
ister plenipoten tiary to proceed to China,
aud avail himself of any opjortunities which
may offer to effect changes in the existing trea
ty favorable to America commerce. He left
the United States for the placo of his distilla
tion in July last in the war steamer Minnesota.
Special ministers to China have also been ap
pointed by the governments of Great Britain
and 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 minis
ters in all peaceful measures to secure by trea
ty stipulations, those just concessions to com
merce 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 dount that the three
ministers will act in harnionus concert to
obtain similar commercial treaties for each ot
the powers they represent. .
We cannot fail to teel a deep interest m all
that coDcerns tho welfare of the independent
republics of our own continent, as well as of
the empire of Brazil. . .' . '
Our difficulties with New Granada, which a
short time since bore so threatening an aspect
are, it is to be hoped, in a fair train of settle
ment in a manner just and honorable to both
parties.
The Isthmus of Central America, including
that of Panama, is the great highway between
the Atlantic and Pacific, over which a largo
portion of the commerce of the world is des
tined to pass. The United States are more
deeply interested than any other nation in pre
serving the freedom and security of all the
communications across this isthmus. It is
onr duty, therefore, to take care that they shall
not be "interrnpted either by invasions from
our own country or by wars between the inde
pendent States of Central America. Under
our treaty with Xew Granada of the 12th Dec.
1846, we are bound to guarantee the neutral
ity of the Isthmus of Panama, through which
the Panama railroad passes, "as well as the
rights of sovereignty and property w hich New
Granada has ami possesses over the said Terri
tory." This obligation is founded upon e
quivalents granted by the treaty to the gov
ernment and people of the United States.
Under these circumstances, I recommend to
Congress the passage of an act authorizing tho
President, in case of necessity, to employ the
land and naval forces of the United States to
carry into effect this guarranty of neutrality
and protection. I also recommend similar le
gislation for the security of any other routo
across the isthmus in which we may acquire an
interest by treaty.
With the independent republics on this con
tinent it is both our duty and our interest to
cultivate the most friendly relations. We can
never feel indifferent to their fate, and must
always rejoice in their prosperity. Unfortu
nately, both for them and for us, our example
and advice have lost much of their influence
in consequence of the lawless expeditions
which have been fitted out against some of
them within the limits of our country. Noth
ing is better calculated to retard our steady
material progress, or impair our character s a
nation, than the toleration of such enterprises
in violation cf the law of nations.
It is one of the first and highest duties ot
any independent State, in its relations with the
members of the great family of nations, to re
strain its people from acts of hostile aggres
sion against their citizens cr subjects. Tho
most eminent writers on public law do not hes
itate to denounce such hostile acts as robbery
aud murder.
Weak and feeble States, like those of Cen
tral America, may not feel themselves able to
assert and vindicate their rights. The case
would be far different if expeditions were set
on foot within our own territories to make
private war against a powerful nation. If such
expeditious were fitted out from abroad against
any portion of our own country, to burn down
our cities, murder and plunder our people, and
usurp our government, we should call any
power on earth to the strictest account for not
preventing such enormities.
Ever since the administration of General
Washington, acts ot Congress have been in
force to punish severely the crime of setting
on foot a military expedition within the limits
of the United States, to proceed from thence
against a nation or State, with whom we are at
peace. The present neutrality act of April
20th, 1818, is but little more than a collection
of pre-existing laws. Under this act the
President is empowered to employ the land
aud naval forces and the militia "for the pur
pose ot preventing the carrying on of any
such expeditions or enterprise from the terri
tories and jurisdicton of the United States,"
and the collectors of customs are authorized,
and required to detain 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 bo made to get up another un
lawful exedition against Nicaragua, the Sec
retary of State issued instructions to the mar
shals and district attorneys, which were direc
ted by the Secretaries of War aud the Navy
to the appropriate army and navy officers, re
quiring tlicm to be vigilant, ant to use tueir
best exertions in carrying into effect the pro-
visions of the act of 1818. .Notwithstanding
these precautions, the expedition has escaped
from our shores. Such enterprises can do ro
possible good to the country, but have already
inflicted much injury both on its interests and
its character. They have prevented peaceful
emi'ation from the L nited States to the
States of Central America, which could not
fail to prove highlv beneficial to all the parties
concerned. In a pccutiiary point of Tiew a
lone, onr citizens have sustained heavy losses
from the seizure and closing of the transit
route by the ban Juan, between the two
oceans.
The leader of tho recent expedition was ar
rested at New Orleans, but was discharged on
giving bail for his appearauce in tho insuffi
cient sum of two thousand dollars.
I commend the whole subject to the serious
attention of Congress, believing that our duty
and our interest, as well as our national char
acter, require that we should adopt such mea
sures as will be effectual iu restraining our cit
izens from committing such outrages.
I regret to inform you that the President of
Paraguay has refused to ratify the treaty be
tween the United States and that State, as
amended by the Senate, the signature ot which
was mentioned in the message of my prede
cessor to Congress at the opening of its ses
sion in December, 1853. The reasons assign
ed for this refusal will appear in the correspon
dence herewith submitted.
It being desirable to ascertain the fitness of
the river La Plata and its tributaries for navi
gation by steam, the United States Steamer
Water Witch was sent thither for that purpose
in 1853. This enterprise was successfully car
ried on until February, 1855, when, whilst ia
the eaceful prosecution of her voyage up the
Para a river, the steamer was fired upon by a
Paraguavan fort. The fire was returned ; but
as the Water Witch was of small force, and
not designed for offensive operations, she re
tired from "he conflict. The pretext npoa
which the attack was made was a decree of
the President of Paraguay of October, 1854,
prohibiting foreign vessels of war from navi
gating the rivers of that State. As Para
guay, however, was the owner of but one
bank or the river of that name, the oth
er belonging to Corrientes, a Stale of the
Argentine Confederation, the right of its gov
ernment to expect that such a decree would
be obeyed cannot be acknowledged. . But tho
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 general
ly. Under these circumstances, I am con
strained to consider the attack upon her as
unjustifiable, and as calling for satisfaction
from the Paraguayan government.
Citizens of the . United States, also, who
were established in business in Paraguay ,have
hd thejr property seizod and taken from them,