Chapter XX: ――history (14)

The transactions between the United States and the Indian tribes have occasioned considerable discussion among the philanthropists of both the new and the old world; we shall, therefore, notice the treaties which were formed somewhat particularly. In February, a treaty was concluded with the Creek nation of Indians. The commissioners on the part of the United States represented to the Creeks, that it is the policy and wish of the general government, that the several Indian tribes within the limits of any of the states of the Union should remove to territory to be designated on the west side of the Mississippi river, as well for the better protection and security of the said tribes, and their improvement in civilization, as for the purpose of enabling the United States, in this instance, to comply with a compact entered into with the state of Georgia, on the 24th of April, 1802. The chiefs of the Creek towns assented to the reasonableness of the proposition, and expressed a willingness to emigrate beyond the Mississippi, those of Tokaubatchee excepted. The Creeks accordingly, by the first article of the treaty, ceded to the United States all the lands within the boundaries of the state of Georgia now occupied by them, or to which they have title or claim, lying within certain described boundaries; and by the second it was agreed, that the United States will give in exchange for the lands hereby acquired the like quantity, acre for acre, westward of the Mississippi, on the Arkansas river. Other stipulations favorable to the equitable claims of the emigrating parties were made; particularly that a deputation may be sent to explore the territory herein offered them in exchange; and if the same be not acceptable to them, then they may select any other territory west of the Mississippi, on Red, Canadian, Arkansas, or Missouri rivers, the territory occupied by the Cherokees and Choctaws excepted; and if the territory to be selected shall be in the occupancy of other Indian tribes, then the United States will extinguish the title of such occupants for the benefit of the said emigrants.

The Kansas Indians, by treaty, ceded to the United States all their lands both within and without the limits of Missouri, excepting a reservation beyond that state on the Kansas river, about thirty miles square, including their villages. In consideration of this cession, the United States agreed to pay three thousand five hundred dollars a year for twenty years; to furnish the Kansas immediately with three hundred head of cattle, three hundred hogs, five hundred fowls, three yoke of oxen, and two carts, and with such farming utensils as the Indian superintendent may deem necessary; to provide and support a blacksmith for them; and to employ persons to aid and instruct them in their agricultural pursuits, as the president may deem expedient. Of the ceded lands, thirty-six sections on the Big Blue river were to be laid out under the direction of the president, and sold for the support of schools among the Kansas. Reservations were also made for the benefit of certain half-breeds; and other stipulations mutually satisfactory. It was also agreed, that no private revenge shall be taken by the Indians for the violation of their rights; but that they shall make their complaint to the superintendent or other agent, and receive justice in a due course of law; and it was lastly agreed, that the Kansas nation shall never dispose of their lands without the consent of the United States, and that the United States shall always have the free right of navigation in the waters of the Kansas.

A treaty was also concluded with the Great and Little Osages, at St. Louis, Missouri. The general principles of this treaty are the same as those of the treaty with the Kansas. The Indians cede all their lands in Arkansas and elsewhere, and then reserve a defined territory, west of the Missouri line, fifty miles square; an agent to be permitted to reside on the reservation, and the United States to have the right of free navigation in all the waters on the tract. The United States pay an annuity of seven thousand dollars for twenty years; furnish forthwith six hundred head of cattle, six hundred hogs, one thousand fowls, ten yoke of oxen, six carts, with farming utensils, persons to teach the Indians agriculture, and a blacksmith, and build a commodious dwelling-house for each of the four principal chiefs, at his own village. Reservations were made for the establishment of a fund for the support of schools for the benefit of the Osage children; and provision was made for the benefit of the Harmony missionary establishment. The United States also assume certain debts due from certain chiefs of the tribes; and agree to deliver at the Osage villages, as soon as may be, four thousand dollars in merchandise, and two thousand six hundred in horses and their equipments.

In May a general convention of peace, amity, navigation, and commerce, between the United States of America and the republic of Colombia, was signed by the president, at Washington.

The fiftieth anniversary, the jubilee, as it was termed, of American independence, was observed throughout the states with great enthusiasm, and was rendered additionally interesting by the remarkable circumstance that both Adams and Jefferson, eminent men among the fathers of their country, died on that day.

The opposition to the administration of Mr. Adams gained strength and development by daily increase, and numerous parties combined for its support or overthrow in various parts of the country. These parties were generally of a geographical character, and in the nineteenth congress it was usually found that the representatives from the southern, took sides directly opposed to those from the northern and western states. A resolution was expressed in some quarters to put down the administration at every hazard, no matter what might be its policy, its integrity, or its success. The cry of corruption was re-echoed by office seekers, and the more desperate portion of the oppositionists, till it began to gain currency with the public, and proved sufficient to secure the downfall of the administration against which it was raised.

The Panama mission was a fruitful subject of clamor and opposition. It was stigmatized as imprudent, unnecessary, at variance with our true and prevailing policy, and pregnant with peril. Charges of extravagance in expenditures were next brought against the heads of the government, and resolutions were introduced in congress, intimating that the executive patronage was too large, and ought to be diminished. The assertion of the president of his constitutional authority to appoint, during the vacation of congress, diplomatic agents to transact the foreign business of the country, was represented as the assumption of an undelegated power. Every opportunity was seized to represent the policy of the federal authorities as tending towards consolidation, and as indicating a disposition for an expensive and magnificent scheme of government.

In conformity with the views of the opposition, a nomination for the next presidency was immediately made, and in October, 1825, the legislature of Tennessee recommended general Jackson to the suffrages of the people of the United States for the highest office in their gift. The nomination he formally accepted, in an address delivered before both houses of the legislature of that state, in which he resigned his seat in the senate. In this address he plainly intimated his dissatisfaction at the result of the late presidential election, and a willingness to sanction an opposition to the administration on the ground of its corrupt origin. This same ground had been taken by the adherents of the vice-president in the discussion of Mr. M’Duffie’s proposed amendment of the constitution in the first session of the nineteenth congress. The public mind was irritated and exasperated by these charges, which were diffused with an industry and zeal to be paralleled only by their baseness. Accusation and recrimination became frequent and passionate, and the most bitter and indignant feelings took place of the tranquillity that had so long reigned in the political world.

At length the charge of corruption was brought from a responsible quarter, and an investigation ensued, which resulted in the complete acquittal of the parties accused. Directly after the adjournment of the eighteenth congress, a letter appeared, bearing date the 8th of March, 1825, purporting to relate a conversation with general Jackson, in which he said that a proposition had been made to him by Mr. Clay’s friends to secure his election to the presidency, on condition that Mr. Adams should not continue as secretary of state. This proposition was said to have been indignantly repelled. A correspondence immediately ensued on this subject between Mr. Beverly, the author of the letter in question, and general Jackson, in which an account of the negotiation alluded to was given at length, and the general disclaimed making any charge against Mr. Clay, and denied having accused him of being privy to the communication. Testimony was now produced by Mr. Clay and his friends, which completely refuted the charge of bargain, and hurled it with scorn in the teeth of his enemies. It was proved beyond a question that in voting for Mr. Adams in the house of representatives, Mr. Clay and his friends had acted with entire consistency, and that any other course would have indeed laid them open to the charge of gross and palpable violation of the principles they had always professed in relation to the election. But the accusation had been made to answer the purpose for which it was framed, and the opposition to the administration had found a permanent basis to build upon.

Mr. Adams continued to act on the principles which he had professed in his inaugural speech, of administering the government without regard to the distinctions of party. In the distribution of offices he asked merely as to the qualifications of the candidates, not of their political opinions. No one suffered by that ruthless policy, which bears so close a resemblance to the proscription of the Roman emperors; the one striking at life itself, the other at the means of life. It is difficult to say which of the two is the more cruel, but they are surely equally unjust and vindictive. The system which makes the presidential chair a mere scramble for office, and the chief executive of the nation a dispenser of loaves and fishes to political adherents, is too mean, narrow, and contemptible, not to be subversive of all the best purposes of government, and must end in the subversion of government itself. The political forum is converted into an arena of battle, and the first moments of victory are sacred to spoil, devastation, and rapine. The lust of gold stifles the cry of mercy, and all the rules of honorable warfare are violated in the fierceness and vindictiveness of triumph. Office holders should be content with fulfilling the duties of their respective stations, and not consider themselves in the light of mere partisans, rewarded for upholding a particular man or set of men. The people pay them for a different service. Mr. Adams regarded this subject in its true bearings, and he acted in it with the stern and fearless integrity which has marked the whole course of his political life. Regardless of consequences, he was perhaps often injudicious in the diffusion of executive patronage, and sometimes furnished the enemy with artillery to be employed in the destruction of his own citadel.

But however the efforts of the opposition might embarrass the movements of the administration, they could not retard the rapid progress of the country in wealth and prosperity. The great works of internal improvement contemplated by the act of April, 1824, were prosecuted with great spirit and vigor. Many routes for roads and canals were surveyed, and a great mass of topographical knowledge was thus collected at Washington. The attention of the general government was also directed to many other subjects of internal improvement, such as the navigation of several important rivers, building lighthouses, piers, and removing obstructions from bays and harbors. The navigation of the Mississippi and Ohio was much improved during this year, by the removal of snags and other impediments from their channels. An impulse was thus given to the efforts of the state governments, and canals and roads were laid out in various directions. Manufacturing establishments flourished with great vigor, and gave proofs of becoming lasting sources of wealth and employment to the national industry. In the year ending September 30, 1826, the value of domestic manufactures exported amounted to five millions eight hundred and fifty-two thousand seven hundred and thirty-three dollars, of which one million one hundred and thirty-eight thousand one hundred and twenty-five dollars consisted of cotton piece goods. The increase of tonnage in the United States during 1826, was one hundred eleven thousand and seventy-nine tons, being double the increase of any one of the preceding twelve years. In conformity with the plan proposed for the settlement of the remaining tribes of the aborigines on the west of the Mississippi, provision was made for the removal thither of such Indians as were disposed to emigrate. Fourteen hundred Shawnees, and about seven hundred Creeks, removed in this manner to spots selected by themselves. The Cherokees refused to cede another foot of land, notwithstanding the efforts made by the general government to procure such a cession of territory as would satisfy the claims of Georgia. The north-western Indians now gave hostile indications, and attacked and murdered some American citizens; but by the prompt measures adopted by governor Cass, the murderers were given up and tranquillity again restored.

Congress having adjourned without passing any law for the purpose of meeting the restrictive measures of the British government in respect to the colonial trade, the president issued a proclamation, dated March 17th, closing the ports of the United States against vessels from the British colonies, which had been opened by the act of 1822. By this measure the British restrictions were completely reciprocated, and the president was sustained in it by public opinion.

The second session of the nineteenth congress commenced on the 4th of December, 1826, when the two houses were organized in the usual manner. The message of the president on this occasion gave a clear account of our foreign relations, and made particular reference to the controversy with Great Britain on the colonial trade. The death of the emperor Alexander of Russia was mentioned in terms which the friendly feelings displayed by that monarch towards this country seemed to require. Our commercial connections with France and the Netherlands were represented to be placed on a more favorable basis than at the commencement of the preceding congress. In the post-office there had been received during the year a surplus of eighty thousand dollars above the expenditures. The revenue was sufficiently large to authorize the application of seven millions sixty-seven thousand and thirty-nine dollars to the reduction of the public debt, and three millions nine hundred and forty-four thousand three hundred and fifty-nine dollars to the payment of interest. A system was recommended for the permanent increase of the navy; the unsettled land claims in Florida and Louisiana; the works of internal improvement, reported by the board of engineers; and the attention of congress was particularly called to the irregularities of the Brazilian and Buenos-Ayrean squadrons towards neutral flags. The estimates of appropriations for the different departments of the government were submitted with the message; and a system of cavalry tactics prepared during the summer under the direction of the war department. These were the most important topics suggested by the message.

The Creek controversy, which might have been considered as happily settled by the treaty of 22d of April, was still to continue a subject of excitement. Instead of waiting till the tribes had removed from their ceded lands, governor Troup ordered the surveyors employed by him to enter the Indian territories and commence the surveys, previous to the time prescribed by the treaty for the removal. The Indians resisted these encroachments, and the governor ordered out a force of militia. In this posture of affairs, the president determined to support the laws of the Union by the authority which the constitution had placed in his hands, previously submitting the affair to congress, to have it determined whether it were necessary to resort to any new measures. On the 5th of February he transmitted to both houses of congress a message, in which he gave a plain statement of the facts, and declared his determination to enforce the laws, and fulfil the duties of the nation by all the force committed for that purpose to his charge. ‘That the arm of military force will be resorted to only in the event of the failure of all other expedients provided by the laws, a pledge has been given by the forbearance to employ it at this time. It is submitted to the wisdom of congress to determine, whether any further acts of legislation may be necessary or expedient to meet the emergency which these transactions may produce.’

Great excitement was displayed in both houses on the receipt of this message. The committee of the representatives, to which it was referred reported that it ‘is expedient to procure a cession of the Indian lands in the state of Georgia, and that until such a cession is procured, the law of the land, as set forth in the treaty at Washington, ought to be maintained by all necessary, constitutional, and legal means.’ The firmness of the president brought the governor of Georgia to reason, and he addressed a letter to the delegation of that state at Washington, submitting to the decision of congress, and denying any intention of a resort to force, except the sovereignty of the state came into collision with the United States. A cession of the Creek land in Georgia was finally procured, and the dispute in respect to this portion of the Indian territory was put at rest.

A bill for an additional protection on woollens was agitated during this session, and finally laid on the table by the casting vote of the vice-president. The defeat of this measure occasioned much discussion in all parts of the Union, and stimulated the friends of this branch of industry to renewed exertions. In Pennsylvania a state convention was proposed, to choose delegates to attend a general convention at Harrisburg on the 30th of July, 1827. Other states answered with alacrity to this invitation, and a meeting was held at the appointed time, of delegates in the highest degree respectable in point of talent, weight of character, and dignity of standing. The reports of their committees, on various subjects connected with domestic industry, exhibited the importance and the necessity of increased protection, and a memorial to congress, drawn up in conformity with these views, was unanimously adopted. These proceedings were received in the southern states with much dissatisfaction. They were represented as at war with their best interests, and with the spirit of the constitution. No means were omitted to raise a strong excitement in the community, in opposition to all increase of the woollen duty; but at the time of the twentieth congress, the public mind was more and more impressed with the opinion that effectual measures would be resorted to for the relief of this branch of national industry.

We have not room for a detailed account of the various measures of Mr. Adams’ administration. During the whole of it the United States enjoyed uninterrupted peace; for the foreign policy of the government had nothing in view but the maintenance of our national dignity, the extension of our commercial relations, and the successful prosecution of the claims of American citizens upon foreign governments.

A portion of these claims upon Sweden and Denmark was obtained, and the claims which arose against the Brazilian government, during the war between that power and Buenos Ayres, were speedily adjusted by the liquidation of the claims. The exorbitant pretensions of Great Britain respecting the West India trade were resisted, although at the expense of the direct trade between the United States and the British islands.

The difficulties which occurred in carrying into effect the treaty of Ghent, relative to deported slaves, and other property taken away, having been found insurmountable, the sum of one million two hundred and four thousand nine hundred and sixty dollars, which was amply sufficient, was obtained from the British government in satisfaction of these claims. A convention was also concluded with that government, and a mode provided for the peaceable settlement of the long pending and finally threatening dispute concerning the north-east boundary of the United States. The treaty of commerce between the United States and Great Britain, and the convention effecting a temporary compromise of their conflicting claims to the territory west of the Rocky mountains, both of which expired by their own limitation, October 20th, 1828 were renewed for an indefinite period, with liberty to either party to terminate them, on giving one year’s notice. Some commercial difficulties, which grew out of an adherence of the government of the Netherlands to the principles of discriminating duties, were adjusted to mutual satisfaction. New treaties of amity, navigation, and commerce, in which the liberal principles maintained by the United States, in her commercial and foreign policy, were generally recognised, were concluded with Colombia, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Guatemala, and the Hanseatic league.

It was, however, in the domestic policy of the government, that the character of the administration was most strongly displayed. During its continuance in office, new and increased activity was imparted to those powers vested in the federal government, for the development of the resources of the country; and the public revenue liberally expended in prosecuting those national measures to which the sanction of congress had been deliberately given, as the settled policy of the government.

In the condition which we have described, in peace with all the world, with an increasing revenue, and with a surplus of five millions one hundred and twenty-five thousand six hundred and thirty-eight dollars in the public treasury, the administration of the government of the United States was surrendered by Mr. Adams, who became a private citizen, to general Jackson, his successor.

Thus ended the administration of Mr. Adams; an administration marked by definite and consistent policy and energetic councils, governed by up-right motives, but from the beginning devoted to the most violent opposition and a signal overthrow. The election which terminated in the defeat of Mr. Adams was marked with extreme bitterness, asperity, and profligacy. On both sides the press was virulent, libellous, and mean. No privacy was safe, no confidence was sacred; even the tombs of the illustrious dead were violated, and their ashes defiled. The arts of party warfare were more insidious than the arts of savage treachery, and its arms more ruthless than the tomahawk or the scalping knife. Calumny and falsehood were the usual resources of the most violent partisans, and the only weapons that they never for a moment laid aside. The brave soldier was described as a malignant savage, and the experienced statesman as a man who had purchased by intrigue a position that he was determined to maintain by corruption. It must be most sincerely hoped that an era may never again arrive in our history to be stamped so indelibly with the brand of shame; that public opinion will ever require of the public press a more decent regard to the charities of life and the duties of truth.

ADMINISTRATION OF ANDREW JACKSON.

As the election of General Jackson to the presidency of the United States brought the democratic party into power, and was hailed by that party as an event, in their view, most auspicious to the interests of the country, unusual efforts were made to render the occasion of his inauguration, one of great interest and attraction. On the 4th of March, 1829, the ceremony took place, and was, in all respects, grand and imposing. At half past eleven of that day, the president elect, preceded by the marshal of the district, and the committee of arrangements, entered the senate chamber, and took his seat in front of the secretary’s desk. On the right of the president’s chair sat the distinguished chief justice of the United States, and the associate judges. The left was occupied by the foreign ministers and their suites, in their official costumes. The rear of the senators and the lobby under the eastern gallery were occupied by ladies; while the western gallery was assigned to members of the house of representatives.

At noon, all repaired in solemn procession to the eastern portico of the capitol; where, in the presence of an immense concourse of people, filling the portico, the steps, and the inclosure, the president delivered his inaugural address.

After expressing his gratitude to the nation for the honor conferred on him, and a determination to promote the welfare of his country, he proceeded, as is usual on similar occasions, to state his political creed; or those principles which would guide him in the administration of the government. “I shall keep steadily in view,” said he, “the limitation, as well as the extent of executive power.” With foreign nations, he would study to preserve peace, and cultivate friendship. The rights of the separate states should be respected, and the power, which they had reserved to themselves should not be confounded with those, which had been granted to the confederacy. A due solicitude should be exercised in the management of the public revenue, and a strict and faithful economy observed in the administration of the government. Agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, should be equally favored. Internal improvement and the diffusion of knowledge should be promoted, as far as might be consistent with the constitution. An increase of the standing army for the present would not be deemed advisable; but a gradual increase of the navy, would be urged as important to the national honor, and national security.

He next spoke of the Indian tribes――towards whom it would be his desire to observe a just and liberal policy――to secure their rights and administer to their wants, as far as duty to the government and justice to the people would admit.

One task――that of _reform_――would demand his speedy and vigilant attention. Abuses had sprung up, which had brought the patronage of the federal government into conflict with the freedom of elections. These must be corrected and those causes counteracted, which had disturbed the rightful course of appointment to office, and which had too often placed, or continued power in unfaithful, or incompetent hands.

In the selection of men to office, it would be his endeavor to place power in the hands of those whose diligence and talents would insure the faithful performance of their respective duties.

In conclusion, he said――“A diffidence, perhaps too just, in my own qualifications, will teach me to look with reverence to the examples of public virtue, left by my illustrious predecessors, and with veneration to the lights that flow from the mind that founded, and the mind that reformed, our system. The same diffidence induces me to hope for instruction and aid from the coordinate branches of the government, and for the indulgence and support of my fellow-citizens generally. And a firm reliance on the goodness of that Power whose providence mercifully protected our national infancy, and has since upheld our liberties in various vicissitudes, encourages me to offer up my ardent supplications, that He will continue to make our beloved country the object of his divine care and gracious benediction.”

The oath to support the constitution was next administered to him by Chief Justice Marshall. This was announced by the prolonged discharge of artillery from various points; during which the president was conducted to his mansion, where he received the congratulations of the people.

Antecedently to the formation of his cabinet, much speculation existed in the country, as to the persons whom General Jackson would call to his counsels. As he was in a great measure uncommitted in respect to the future policy of his government, no inconsiderable anxiety was felt, especially by office holders, on the subject of these appointments, as these would furnish some indications as to his future course. All speculation, however, was soon terminated by the nomination of Martin Van Buren, of New York, as secretary of state; John H. Eaton, of Tennessee, as secretary of war; Samuel D. Ingham, of Pennsylvania, secretary of the treasury; John Branch, of North Carolina, secretary of the navy; William T. Barry, of Kentucky, postmaster-general; John M. Berrien, of Georgia, attorney-general. These several nominations were ratified by the senate, without opposition.

At the time of his appointment, Mr. Van Buren was governor of the state of New York. This office he immediately resigned――retiring with a complimentary address from the legislature of that state. Mr. Van Buren was considered as a man distinguished for tact and self-possession, and as destined to act a distinguished part in the public counsels to which he had been called. The attorney-general was considered a man of liberal attainments, and fully qualified, by his learning and eloquence, for the station to which he was elevated. The other members of the cabinet had not been particularly distinguished for their public services. Mr. Eaton was the personal friend of the president. Mr. Ingham had been an active partisan in Pennsylvania, the state which brought General Jackson into the field, as a candidate. The motives which influenced the appointment of Mr. Branch as secretary of the navy were never satisfactorily ascertained. Previously to this time, the postmaster-general had not been a constituent of the cabinet, but it was now determined to introduce him as a member. Mr. Barry, who succeeded John M’Lean, in this office, the latter being removed to the bench of the Supreme Court, was one of the leaders of the relief party in Kentucky.

The cabinet was now constituted; and, after confirming the nominations of several individuals to diplomatic posts, and lucrative stations in the land office, custom-house, and navy, the senate adjourned on the 17th of March, the Executive having informed that body, that he had no further business to lay before them.

In the course of his inaugural address, General Jackson had expressed his conviction of the necessity of _reform_, in regard to the distribution of the public offices, within the control of the executive. To this “task of reform,” as he termed it, he immediately addressed himself, on the adjournment of the senate. Availing himself of the right of the Executive to fill vacancies occurring in the recess, he removed the principal officers of the treasury, the marshals, and district attorneys in most of the eastern, middle, and western states, the revenue officers of the chief Atlantic ports, the greater part of the receivers and registers in the land office, and changed the ministers plenipotentiary to Great Britain, France, Netherlands, and Spain.

But a still more unprecedented change was made in the post office department――the number of removals here, between the 4th of March, 1829, and the 22d of March, 1830, being four hundred and ninety-one. These removals contrasted strongly with those of former administrations. Washington, during his administration of eight years, removed but nine; Mr. Adams, ten; Mr. Jefferson, thirty-nine; Mr. Madison, five; Mr. Monroe, nine; John Quincy Adams, two.

The removals thus effected by General Jackson, so sudden, and so numerous, were strongly censured by the opposers of the administration. The president was charged with usurping an authority not conferred by the constitution, which it was contended only gave him the right to fill vacancies, either accidentally occurring, or caused by some official misconduct. It was charged, also, that prior to his election, he had expressed an opinion, that members of congress should not be appointed to office, during the term for which they had been elected, nor for two years after. Yet, in direct opposition to his express views, he was conferring a greater number of offices on members of congress, in the compass of a single year, than any of his predecessors had done, during the entire period of their administration.

On the other hand, the friends of the president justified his course. They maintained that he was “solely invested with the right of removal; that it was a discretionary right, for the exercise of which he was responsible solely to the nation; that that power was given to enable him, not only to remove incumbents for delinquency, or incapacity, but with the view of reforming the administration of the government, and introducing officers of greater efficiency, or sounder principles into its various departments. Occasion was also taken, owing to the defalcation of a few of those removed, to assert the necessity of reform; and great efforts were made to create an impression on the public mind of the necessity of a general removal of the officers of the federal government.”[150]

The preceding changes were the subject of much discussion, on the assembling of congress. A spirited opposition was instituted by the minority in the senate, against the principles of the Executive, in relation to removals, both on the ground of their unconstitutionality and inexpediency. Most of those who had been appointed by the president to office were, notwithstanding this opposition, confirmed; but several were rejected by strong votes.

On the 7th of December, 1829, commenced the first session of the twenty-first congress. Andrew Stevenson was again elected speaker of the house. On the day following, the president communicated his first message. It embodied several topics of interest and importance. The principal of these related to an amendment of the constitution, to the choice of president and vice-president――a modification of the tariff――a provision for the disposition of the surplus revenue, after the extinguishment of the national debt――the assignment of a territory west of the Mississippi for the Indian tribes, within the states――and a consideration of the expediency of extending the charter of the Bank of the United States.

The foreign relations of the state, the president said, were satisfactory, except in relation to England and France. The boundary line between Maine and the British Provinces of Canada and New Brunswick was still the subject of controversy; for although by mutual consent the question had been submitted to the king of the Netherlands, neither party would abide his decision.

Another controversy between these two governments respected the West India trade. The treaty of commerce between the two countries, on the termination of the late war, although reciprocal, did not extend to the colonial possessions of Great Britain. In consequence of this, the policy of England was to render the intercourse of the United States with the West Indies, chiefly, if not exclusively, advantageous to herself. Accordingly, in different years, various acts had been passed by the British government, having the above monopoly in view. Measures retaliatory had, from time to time, been adopted by the United States. In effect, the trade was lost to the United States. This important subject was now brought to the attention of congress, and before the close of the session the controversy was adjusted. It was conceded to the British government, what it had long claimed, but denied by the American government――the exclusive power to the former of regulating her colonial trade. The president was also authorized to confer on British vessels all those privileges, as well in the circuitous, as in the direct voyage, which Great Britain had demanded. These concessions being deemed sufficient by the British government, her West India ports were opened _by her_ to the United States, on terms satisfactory to the latter. A renewal of the trade was the immediate consequence.

The controversy between the United States and France related to depredations upon the property of American citizens, during the reign of Napoleon. Claims growing out of these depredations remained unpaid. The president informed congress that he had given instructions to our minister to press these demands on the French government, with appropriate earnestness.

He next proceeded to recommend “such an amendment of the constitution, as would remove all intermediate agency in the election of president and vice-president.” “The mode,” said he, “may be so regulated as to preserve to each state its present relative weight in the election; and a failure in the first attempt may be provided for, by confining the second to a choice between the two highest candidates. In connexion with such an amendment, it would seem advisable to limit the service of chief magistrate to a single term, of either four, or six years.”

Next, adverting to the surplus revenue, he expressed his belief, that the most safe, just and federal disposition, which could be made of the surplus revenue, would be its apportionment among the several states according to their ratio of representation; and should this measure not be found warranted by the constitution, that it would be expedient to propose to the states an amendment, authorizing it.

In regard to the disposal of the Indian tribes, the president suggested the propriety of setting apart an ample district, west of the Mississippi, and without the limits of any state or territory, now formed, to be guarantied to the tribes as long as they shall occupy it; each tribe having a distinct control over the portion designated for its use. “There,” said the president, “they may be secured in the enjoyment of governments of their own choice, subject to no other control from the United States, than such as may be necessary to preserve peace on the frontier, and between the several tribes.”

Another important subject, included in the message, and one which, as years have succeeded, has occasioned great political dissension, was the subject of the renewal of the charter of the United States Bank. Although several years would elapse, before the charter would expire, the Executive deemed it a subject of sufficient importance, thus early to bring it before the legislature and the people. In so doing, and in the terms employed, he was understood to be opposed to such an institution. “Both the constitutionality and the expediency of the law creating this bank,” he observed, “are well questioned by a large portion of our fellow-citizens; and it must be admitted by all, that it has failed in the great end of establishing a uniform and sound currency.”

“Under these circumstances, if such an institution is deemed essential to the fiscal operations of the government, I submit to the wisdom of the legislature, whether a national one, founded upon the credit of the government, and its revenues, might not be devised, which would avoid all constitutional difficulties; and, at the same time, secure all the advantages to the government and country that were expected to result from the present bank.”

The message of the president, embracing subjects of great importance, and unfolding, as it did, his views in relation to them, excited an intense interest throughout the country. It gave birth to strong and animated debates in the national legislature, in which many of the ablest statesmen of both political parties participated. The subjects of greatest interest debated, related to the Indian affairs――the public lands――the United States Bank――the tariff――and internal improvements.

One of the most embarrassing subjects which fell under the cognizance of the new administration, related to the Indian tribes, within the limits of the states already admitted into the Union; but especially to the Cherokees, a powerful tribe, within the limits of Georgia. This state laid claim to the territory occupied by the tribe; and, encouraged by the views of the executive, viz., that he could not interpose to prevent a state from extending her laws over the tribes, within her limits, authorized an intrusion upon the Indian territory for the purpose of surveying it, and extending her jurisdiction over it. The state laws were accordingly attempted to be enforced. One George Tassel, a Cherokee, was arraigned for the murder of another Cherokee, tried, and condemned.

About this time, Samuel Worcester and other missionaries were arrested, by order of the governor, and taken before the superior court of Gwinnett county, for refusing to obtain a permit from the government of Georgia to reside within the territory, or to take an oath of allegiance to the state. Mr. Worcester and Mr. Thompson, being missionaries, were discharged by the court, on the alleged ground, that they were agents of the government, having been employed to disburse among the Indians a portion of their annuities. This decision of the court gave great offence to the state authorities; and the governor obtained from the general government a disavowal that the missionaries were its agents. No sooner was this disavowal received, than Mr. Worcester and Ezra Butler were warned to quit the nation, with which order, not complying, they were arrested, tried, and sentenced to four years confinement at hard labor, in the penitentiary of Georgia. Much indignation was manifested throughout the country at this violation of personal rights, superadded to what this course was claimed to be, a complete disregard of the federal compact, and the faith of treaties. The decision of the president, however, sustained Georgia in the ground she had taken, and she proceeded to carry out her policy towards the Cherokees.

The case of the missionaries, however, was, at length, brought before the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision of that court, March 30, 1832, involved the question of jurisdiction over the country of the Cherokees. The claims of Georgia were set aside by this decision, as unconstitutional; and her laws by which the Indians had been deprived of their rights, and the missionaries confined and imprisoned, were pronounced null and void. This decision of the supreme judicial tribunal of the United States was resisted by Georgia, and the missionaries continued in prison. This unpleasant controversy was, at length, ended by a letter addressed, January 8th, 1833, by the missionaries to the governor of Georgia, in which they informed his Excellency, that they had forwarded instructions to their counsel, to prosecute the case no farther. Upon this, January 14th, his Excellency issued his proclamation remitting the farther execution of the sentence, and discharging the missionaries from prison. We shall only add, that on the 23d of May, 1838, a military force of several thousand men, under the command of Gen. Scott, was assembled on the Cherokee territory, for the purpose of removing the nation to the territory assigned them beyond the great river of the west, a bill having passed congress in 1831, authorizing the president to set apart such portions of the public territory, west of the Mississippi, as he should deem necessary for the permanent residence of the Cherokees, and other emigrating tribes. This bill, at the time of its introduction into congress, 22d of February, 1830, gave rise to a long and spirited debate in both houses, during which the whole subject of the relations of the federal government with the Indians was developed. The final vote on it in the house was close, being one hundred and two affirmative, and ninety-seven negative. In the senate, the majority was larger. The passage of this bill, connected with the course taken by the president in relation to the Indians, formed an era in the policy of the United States, respecting the aboriginal tribes.

Another exciting topic agitated in congress, related to the public lands. These lands were acquired by the federal government in two modes. The portion west of the Mississippi, forming much the larger part, is held under the Louisiana treaty, having been acquired by purchase from France. The residue was acquired at the treaty of 1783, the fruits of conquest from the crown of Great Britain. Out of these territories, new states had been formed. Prior to the adoption of the federal constitution, but few sales had been made. In 1800, the acts containing the principal features of the present land system were passed. These have been subsequently modified, and in 1820 cash sales were substituted for sales on credit.

Acting upon the new principle advanced by Georgia, in relation to the sovereignty of the state over all lands within its limits, some of the new states have set up a claim to the property in the soil of all lands, not owned by individuals, as an incident of sovereignty.

In consequence of these claims, and memorials of some of the western legislatures against the existing mode of disposing of the public lands, Mr. Foot, of Connecticut, on the 29th of December, 1829, introduced into the senate the following resolution:――“Resolved, that the committee on public lands be instructed to inquire into the expediency of limiting, for a certain period, the sales of the public lands, to such lands only as have heretofore been offered for sale, and are subject to entry at the minimum price, and also whether the office of surveyor-general may not be abolished, without detriment to the public interest.”

This resolution was immediately and strongly opposed, as a part of a systematic policy for crippling the growth of the west. It was urged that it would serve to prevent emigration to those states, within whose territory these lands lay. The debate to which this resolution gave rise continued for several weeks, during which Messrs. Hayne and Webster made speeches, which will long be remembered for their eloquence, ingenuity and power. Others mingled in the warm and animated discussion, wandering from the subject of the public lands to discuss almost every topic of general interest connected with the politics of the day.

In his message to congress, the President had expressed an opinion against renewing the charter of the United States Bank, which would expire in 1836. The bank had not applied for such renewal, but being pressed on the attention of congress, it was referred to the committee on finance in both houses of congress for examination. On the 30th of April, 1830, Mr. M’Duffie, the chairman of the committee of ways and means, in the house, made a report diametrically opposite to the recommendations of the President. Respecting the first proposition contained in the message, that congress had not constitutional power to incorporate a bank, the committee deemed that question no longer open for discussion. They also came to a different opinion from that contained in the message, respecting the expediency of the measure. The report from the committee on finance in the senate concurred with that of the house in its conclusions, and was equally decisive in its condemnation of the sentiments of the President. The effect produced in the public mind by the message was entirely done away, and the stock of the bank, which had fallen, upon the delivery of the message, from one hundred and twenty-six to one hundred and twenty, rose, after the publication of these reports, to one hundred and twenty-seven, and finally attained the price of one hundred and thirty dollars per share.

In December, 1832, a memorial was presented to congress from the president and directors of the United States Bank for a renewal of its charter. Soon after, a committee was appointed by the house to investigate the proceedings of the bank. A majority of this committee, adopting the views of the Executive, reported against a renewal of the charter, principally on the ground of a violation of its charter by illegal transactions. A counter report was presented by the minority, in the conclusion of which they bore unequivocal testimony to the fidelity of the officers of that institution. On the 10th of June, the question was taken in the senate on a bill to incorporate the bank, which passed that body by a vote of twenty-eight to twenty. On the 3d of July the question was taken in the house, and the charter renewed by a vote of one hundred and seven to eighty-five. On the 10th, the bill was returned by the President with his objections.

Although not unexpected to the country, the veto put upon the bill by the President gave great dissatisfaction to the friends of the bank in every section of the United States. A general disturbance of the currency was predicted as the necessary consequence. “We have arrived at a new epoch,” said one of the advocates of the bank on the floor of the senate: “We are entering on _experiments_ with the government and constitution of the country, hitherto untried and of fearful and appalling aspects.” Another subject of importance introduced in the message respected _internal_ improvements. During the administration of Washington and the elder Adams, no application was made of the public revenue to internal improvements; the government having as many demands upon the treasury, growing out of debts incurred in the Revolution, as could be met. But during the presidency of Mr. Jefferson, the internal improvement policy was begun, by an act passed May 1st, 1802, making appropriations for opening roads in the north-west territory. This was followed by other similar appropriations. During Mr. Madison’s administration, the appropriations were increased, and still further augmented, while Mr. Monroe was in office. On the accession of Mr. Adams, the policy was still pursued; and as he was understood to give a still more liberal construction of the constitution on this subject, more appropriations were made for the above object during his administration than during those of all his predecessors. General Jackson, while holding a seat in the senate of the United States, had voted with the friends of internal improvements. It was therefore anticipated by a numerous class in the United States, and among them were some of his friends, that he would follow out the policy of his predecessors. In his message to congress, however, he first manifested an unwillingness to the exercise of this power by congress. As the session advanced, it became more and more apparent that he was hostile to all appropriations to the above object. And, finally, all doubt was ended by his return of several bills appropriating money for internal improvements, with objections.

A decided majority in congress being in favor of such appropriations, notwithstanding the views of the Executive, several bills were introduced into the house similar to those which the President had rejected, and were passed by both houses by decided majorities. The President and his cabinet thus found themselves compelled to yield to public opinion expressed in congress, and although their determination checked the action of the federal government in relation to internal improvements, still they had surrendered every principle, upon which their opposition to the system could be founded. By these decisive votes in congress, this policy was considered as firmly established, and nothing was required to carry it into effect with moderation and discretion, but the harmonious co-operation between different branches of the government.

During the summer of 1831 a new cabinet was organized, consisting of Edward Livingston, of Louisiana, secretary of state; Louis M’Lane, of Delaware, secretary of the treasury; Lewis Cass, of Ohio, secretary of war; Levi Woodbury, of New Hampshire, secretary of the navy; Roger B. Taney, of Maryland, attorney-general.

The public press had for some time been filled with rumor that there existed but little, if any harmony in the first cabinet. The question of the succession, it is said, was a matter of jealousy and disunion even at this early day. But the chief difficulty, according to a communication from the attorney-general, arose from a determination on the part of the president to compel the families of the dismissed members to associate with the wife of the secretary of war. By this statement it appeared, that these ladies had, in accordance with the general understanding of the female part of society at Washington, declined to visit the family of the secretary of war, and that this neglect, being resented by that gentleman, had produced a coolness between him and the heads of those families. As the President warmly espoused the feelings of the secretary of war, as of an old and confidential friend, it was rumored early in the year, that their removal would be a consequence of this resentment; and the attorney-general stated, that about that time a confidential friend of the President (Richard M. Johnson), called upon him and other refractory members, as from the President, and intimated to them that, unless they would consent to at least a formal intercourse between their families and that of the secretary of war, he had determined to remove them from office. They replied, that while they felt bound to maintain a frank and harmonious intercourse with their colleague, they would not permit any interference with the social relations of their families, and wholly refused to comply with the request. Other friends, however, interfered, and the president was induced to waive any further prosecution of the subject at that time. To that refusal, however, he attributed the want of harmony in the cabinet, and its consequent dissolution.

On the 4th of July, 1831, a treaty settling the claims of American citizens on France for spoliations during Napoleon’s government was signed by Mr. Rives, and Sebastiani, at Paris, and the ratifications in due time were exchanged between the two governments.