Chapter I (8)

But it is evident that this general declaration did not relieve the subject from its difficulties. Vessels of the United States found engaged in the African slave trade are guilty of piracy under the acts of Congress. It is difficult to say that such vessels can claim any interference of the Government in their behalf, into whosesoever hands they may happen to fall, any more than vessels which should turn general pirates. Notorious African slave traders can not claim the protection of the American character, inasmuch as they are acting in direct violation of the laws of their country and stand denounced by those laws as pirates. In case of the seizure of such a vessel by a foreign cruiser, and of her being brought into a port of the United States, what is to be done with her? Shall she be libeled, prosecuted, and condemned as if arrested by a cruiser of the United States? If this is to be done, it is clear that the agency of a foreign power has been instrumental in executing the laws of the United States. Or, on the other hand, is the vessel, with all her offenses flagrant upon her, to be released on account of the agency by which she was seized, discharged of all penalties, and left at liberty to renew her illegal and nefarious traffic?

It appeared to me that the best, if not the only, mode of avoiding these and other difficulties was by adopting such a provision as is contained in the late treaty with England.

The Senate asks me for the reasons for entering into the stipulations for the "remonstrating embassies" contained in the late treaty. Surely there is no stipulation in the treaty for any "remonstrating embassies," or any other embassies, nor any reference or allusion to any such thing. In this respect all that the treaty provides is in the ninth article and is in these words:

The parties to this treaty agree that they will unite in all becoming
representations and remonstrances with any and all powers within whose
dominions such markets [for African slaves] are allowed to exist, and
that they will urge upon all such powers the propriety and duty of
closing such markets effectually, at once and forever.

It always gives me sincere pleasure to communicate to both Houses of Congress anything in my power which may aid them in the discharge of their high duties and which the public interest does not require to be withheld. In transmitting the late treaty to the Senate everything was caused to accompany it which it was supposed could enlighten the judgment of the Senate upon its various provisions. The views of the Executive, in agreeing to the eighth and ninth articles, were fully expressed, and pending the discussion in the Senate every call for further information was promptly complied with, and nothing kept back which the Senate desired. Upon this information and upon its own knowledge of the subject the Senate made up and pronounced its judgment upon its own high responsibility, and as the result of that judgment the treaty was ratified, as the Journal shows, by a vote of 39 to 9. The treaty has thus become the law of the land by the express advice of the Senate, given in the most solemn manner known to its proceedings. The fourth request is--

That the President be requested to communicate to the Senate all the
correspondence with our ministers abroad relating to the foregoing
points of inquiry.

If this branch of the resolution were more definite, some parts of it might perhaps be met without prejudice to the public interest by extracts from the correspondence referred to. At a future day a communication may be expected to be made as broad and general as a proper regard to these interests will admit, but at present I deem any such communication not to be consistent with the public interest.

The fifth and last is--

That the President be requested to communicate to the Senate all such
information upon the negotiation of the African squadron articles as
will show the origin of such articles and the history and progress of
their formation.

These articles were proposed to the British minister by the Secretary of State under my express sanction and were acceded to by him and have since been ratified by both Governments. I might without disrespect speak of the novelty of inquiring by the Senate into the history and progress of articles of a treaty through a negotiation which has terminated, and as the result of which these articles have become the law of the land by the constitutional advice of the Senate itself. But I repeat that those articles had their origin in a desire on the part of the Government of the United States to fulfill its obligations, entered into by the treaty of Ghent, to do its utmost for the suppression of the African slave trade, and to accomplish this object by such means as should not lead to the interruption of the lawful commerce of the United States or any derogation from the dignity and immunity of their flag. And I have the satisfaction to believe that both the Executive, in negotiating the treaty of which these articles form part, and the Senate, in advising to its ratification, have effected an object important to the Government and satisfactory to the people.

In conclusion I hope I may be permitted to observe that I have, out of a profound respect for the Senate, been induced to make this communication in answer to inquiries some of which at least are believed to be without precedent in the history of the relations between that body and the executive department. These inquiries were particularly unexpected to me at the present moment. As I had been so fortunate as to find my own views of the expediency of ratifying the late treaty with England confirmed by a vote of somewhat more than four-fifths of the Senators present, I have hitherto flattered myself that the motives which influenced my conduct had been fully appreciated by those who advised and approved it, and that if a necessity should ever arise for any special explanation or defense in regard to those motives it could scarcely be in that assembly itself.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _January 18, 1843_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 27th ultimo, I now transmit the letter and pamphlet[84] which accompanies this.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 84: Entitled "Acts and Resolutions of the Legislative Council of the Territory of Florida," passed at its twentieth session, January 3 to March 5, 1842.]

WASHINGTON, _January 23, 1843_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith transmit to the Senate, in answer to their resolution of the 19th instant, reports[85] from the State and War Departments.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 85: Relating to a grant of land in Oregon Territory to the Hudsons Bay Company by the British Government.]

WASHINGTON, _January 23, 1843_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate herewith, in answer to their resolution of the 5th instant, a report[86] from the Secretary of State, with accompanying documents.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 86: Transmitting correspondence with Great Britain relative to the destruction of the steamboat _Caroline_ at Schlosser, N.Y., December 29, 1837.]

WASHINGTON, _January 31, 1843_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 24th instant, requesting me to communicate answers to certain queries therein contained respecting instructions given to the commissioners appointed to adjudicate claims arising under the Cherokee treaty of 1835, I transmit herewith a report from the War Department, accompanied by a copy of the instructions referred to.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _January 31, 1843_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

At the last session of Congress a resolution was passed by the House of Representatives requesting me to cause to be communicated to the House "the several reports made to the Department of War by Lieutenant-Colonel Hitchcock relative to the affairs of the Cherokee Indians, together with all information communicated by him concerning the frauds he was charged to investigate; also all facts in the possession of the Executive relating to the subject."

A resolution of the same import had been passed by the House of Representatives on the 18th of May last, requiring the Secretary of War to communicate to the House the same reports and matters. After consultation with me and under my directions, the Secretary of War informed the House that the reports referred to relative to the affairs of the Cherokees contained information and suggestions in reference to the matters which it was supposed would become the subject of a negotiation between that Department and the delegates of the Cherokee Nation. It was stated by him that the nature and subject of the report, in the opinion of the President and the Department, rendered its publication at that time inconsistent with the public interest. The negotiation referred to subsequently took place, and embraced the matters upon which Lieutenant-Colonel Hitchcock had communicated his views. That negotiation terminated without the conclusion of any arrangement. It may, and in all probability will, be renewed. All the information communicated by Lieutenant-Colonel Hitchcock respecting the Cherokees--their condition as a nation and their relations to other tribes--is herewith transmitted. But his suggestions and projects respecting the anticipated propositions of the delegates and his views of their personal characters can not in any event aid the legislation of Congress, and in my opinion the promulgation of them would be unfair and unjust to him and inconsistent with the public interest, and they are therefore not transmitted.

The Secretary of War further stated in his answer to the resolution that the other report referred to in it, relating to the alleged frauds which Lieutenant-Colonel Hitchcock was charged to investigate, contained such information as he (Colonel Hitchcock) was enabled to obtain by _ex parte_ inquiries of various persons whose statements were necessarily without the sanction of an oath, and which the persons implicated had had no opportunity to contradict or explain. He expressed the opinion that to promulgate those statements at that time would be grossly unjust to those persons and would be calculated to defeat rather than promote the objects of the inquiry, and he remarked that sufficient opportunity had not been given to the Department to pursue the investigation or to call upon the parties affected for explanations or to determine on the measures proper to be adopted. And he hoped these reasons would be satisfactory for not transmitting to the House at that time the reports referred to in its resolution.

It would appear from the report of the Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom the communication of the Secretary of War was referred, and which report has been transmitted to me, together with the resolutions of the House adopted on the recommendation of the committee, and from those resolutions, that the reasons given by the Secretary were not deemed satisfactory and that the House of Representatives claims the right to demand from the Executive and heads of Departments such information as maybe in their possession relating to "subjects of the deliberations of the House and within the sphere of its legitimate powers," and that in the opinion of the House the reports and facts called for by its resolution of the 18th of May related to subjects of its deliberations and were within the sphere of its legitimate powers, and should have been communicated.

If by the assertion of this claim of right to call upon the Executive for all the information in its possession relating to any subject of the deliberation of the House, and within the sphere of its legitimate powers, it is intended to assert also that the Executive is bound to comply with such call without the authority to exercise any discretion on its part in reference to the nature of the information required or to the interests of the country or of individuals to be affected by such compliance, then do I feel bound, in the discharge of the high duty imposed upon me "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," to declare in the most respectful manner my entire dissent from such a proposition. The instrument from which the several departments of the Government derive their authority makes each independent of the other in the discharge of their respective functions. The injunction of the Constitution that the President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed" necessarily confers an authority commensurate with the obligation imposed to inquire into the manner in which all public agents perform the duties assigned to them by law. To be effective these inquiries must often be confidential. They may result in the collection of truth or of falsehood, or they may be incomplete and may require further prosecution. To maintain that the President can exercise no discretion as to the time in which the matters thus collected shall be promulgated or in respect to the character of the information obtained would deprive him at once of the means of performing one of the most salutary duties of his office. An inquiry might be arrested at its first stage and the officers whose conduct demanded investigation may be enabled to elude or defeat it. To require from the Executive the transfer of this discretion to a coordinate branch of the Government is equivalent to the denial of its possession by him and would render him dependent upon that branch in the performance of a duty purely executive.

Nor can it be a sound position that all papers, documents, and information of every description which may happen by any means to come into the possession of the President or of the heads of Departments must necessarily be subject to the call of the House of Representatives _merely_ because they relate to a subject of the deliberations of the House, although that subject may be within the sphere of its legitimate powers. It can not be that the only test is whether the information relates to a legitimate subject of deliberation. The Executive Departments and the citizens of this country have their rights and duties as well as the House of Representatives, and the maxim that the rights of one person or body are to be so exercised as not to impair those of others is applicable in its fullest extent to this question. Impertinence or malignity may seek to make the Executive Departments the means of incalculable and irremediable injury to innocent parties by throwing into them libels most foul and atrocious. Shall there be no discretionary authority permitted to refuse to become the instruments of such malevolence?

And although information comes through a proper channel to an executive officer it may often be of a character to forbid its being made public. The officer charged with a confidential inquiry, and who reports its result under the pledge of confidence which his appointment implies, ought not to be exposed individually to the resentment of those whose conduct may be impugned by the information he collects. The knowledge that such is to be the consequence will inevitably prevent the performance of duties of that character, and thus the Government will be deprived of an important means of investigating the conduct of its agents.

It is certainly no new doctrine in the halls of judicature or of legislation that certain communications and papers are privileged, and that the general authority to compel testimony must give way in certain cases to the paramount rights of individuals or of the Government. Thus no man can be compelled to accuse himself, to answer any question that tends to render him infamous, or to produce his own private papers on any occasion. The communications of a client to his counsel and the admissions made at the confessional in the course of religious discipline are privileged communications. In the courts of that country from which we derive our great principles of individual liberty and the rules of evidence it is well settled--and the doctrine has been fully recognized in this country--that a minister of the Crown or the head of a department can not be compelled to produce any papers or disclose any transactions relating to the executive functions of the Government which he declares are confidential or such as the public interest requires should not be divulged; and the persons who have been the channels of communication to officers of the State are in like manner protected from the disclosure of their names. Other instances of privileged communications might be enumerated if it were deemed necessary. These principles are as applicable to evidence sought by a legislature as to that required by a court.

The practice of the Government since its foundation has sanctioned the principle that there must necessarily be a discretionary authority in reference to the nature of the information called for by either House of Congress.

The authority was claimed and exercised by General Washington in 1796. In 1825 President Monroe declined compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives calling for the correspondence between the Executive Departments of this Government and the officers of the United States Navy and others at or near the ports of South America on the Pacific Ocean. In a communication made by the Secretary of War in 1832 to the Committee of the House on the Public Lands, by direction of President Jackson, he denies the obligation of the Executive to furnish the information called for and maintains the authority of the President to exercise a sound discretion in complying with calls of that description by the House of Representatives or its committees. Without multiplying other instances, it is not deemed improper to refer to the refusal of the President at the last session of the present Congress to comply with a resolution of the House of Representatives calling for the names of the members of Congress who had applied for offices. As no further notice was taken in any form of this refusal, it would seem to be a fair inference that the House itself admitted that there were cases in which the President had a discretionary authority in respect to the transmission of information in the possession of any of the Executive Departments.

Apprehensive that silence under the claim supposed to be set up in the resolutions of the House of Representatives under consideration might be construed as an acquiescence in its soundness, I have deemed it due to the great importance of the subject to state my views, that a compliance in part with the resolution may not be deemed a surrender of a necessary authority of the Executive.

Many of the reasons which existed at the date of the report of the Secretary of War of June 1, 1842, for then declining to transmit the report of Lieutenant-Colonel Hitchcock concerning the frauds which he was charged to investigate have ceased to operate. It has been found wholly impracticable to pursue the investigation in consequence of the death and removal out of the country of those who would be called upon to testify, and in consequence of the want of adequate authority or means to render it effectual. It could not be conducted without expense. Congress at its last session prohibited the payment of any account or charge whatever growing out of or in any way connected with any commission or inquiry, except military and naval courts-martial and courts of inquiry, unless special appropriations should be made for the payment of such accounts and charges. Of the policy of that provision of law it does not become me to speak, except to say that the institution of inquiries into the conduct of public agents, however urgent the necessity for such inquiry may be, is thereby virtually denied to the Executive, and that if evils of magnitude shall arise in consequence of the law I take to myself no portion of the responsibility.

In relation to the propriety of directing prosecutions against the contractors to furnish Indians rations who are charged with improper conduct, a correspondence has been had between the War Department and the Solicitor of the Treasury, which is herewith transmitted in a conviction that such prosecution would be entirely ineffectual.

Under these circumstances I have thought proper to direct that the report of Lieutenant-Colonel Hitchcock concerning the frauds which he was charged to investigate be transmitted to the House of Representatives, and it accordingly accompanies this message. At the same time, I have to request the House to consider it so far confidential as not to direct its publication until the appropriate committee shall have examined it and expressed their opinion whether a just regard to the character and rights of persons apparently implicated, but who have not had an opportunity to meet the imputations on them, does not require that portions at least of the report should not at present be printed.

This course is adopted by me from a desire to render justice to all and at the same time avoid even the appearance of a desire to screen any, and also to prevent the exaggerated estimate of the importance of the information which is likely to be made from the mere fact of its being withheld.

The resolution of the House also calls for "all facts in the possession of the Executive, from any source, relating to the subject." There are two subjects specified in the resolution--one "relative to the affairs of the Cherokee Indians," and another "concerning the frauds he [Lieutenant-Colonel Hitchcock] was charged to investigate."

All the papers in the War Department or its bureaus relating to the affairs of the Cherokee Indians, it is believed, have been from time to time communicated to Congress and are contained in the printed documents, or are now transmitted, with the exception of those portions of Lieutenant-Colonel Hitchcock's report hereinbefore mentioned, and excepting the correspondence with the Cherokee delegates in the negotiations which took place during the last summer, which are not supposed to be within the intent of the resolution of the House. For the same reason a memorial from the Old Settlers, or Western Cherokees, as they term themselves, recently presented, is not transmitted. If these or any other public documents should be desired by the House, a specification of them will enable me to cause them to be furnished if it should be found proper.

All the papers in the War Office or its bureaus known or supposed to have any relation to the alleged frauds which Lieutenant-Colonel Hitchcock was charged to investigate are herewith transmitted.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _February 8, 1843_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

I herewith transmit to the House of Representatives, in answer to their resolution of the 28th ultimo, a report[87] from the Secretary of State.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 87: Stating that no information is in possession of the Government of any negotiation of a treaty, or of any overtures to treat, for a cession of California by Mexico to England.]

WASHINGTON, _February 9, 1843_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In order to enable Congress to approve or disapprove the selection of a site for a Western armory made by the board of commissioners appointed by me for that purpose pursuant to the act of September 9, 1841, I transmit herewith their report and proceedings, as required by that act.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _February 13, 1843_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith transmit to the House of Representatives a report made to me on the 9th instant by the Secretary of the Treasury, on the subject of the present and prospective condition of the finances.

You will perceive from it that even if the receipts from the various sources of revenue for the current year shall prove not to have been overrated and the expenditures be restrained within the estimates, the Treasury will be exhausted before the close of the year, and that this will be the case although authority should be given to the proper Department to reissue Treasury notes. But the state of facts existing at the present moment can not fail to awaken a doubt whether the amount of the revenue for the respective quarters of the year will come up to the estimates, nor is it entirely certain that the expenditures which will be authorized by Congress may not exceed the aggregate sum which has hitherto been assumed as the basis of the Treasury calculations.

Of all the duties of the Government, none is more sacred and imperative than that of making adequate and ample provision for fulfilling with punctuality its pecuniary engagements and maintaining the public credit inviolate. Any failure in this respect not produced by unforeseen causes could only be regarded by our common constituents as a serious neglect of the public interests. I feel it, therefore, to be an indispensable obligation, while so much of the session yet remains unexpired as to enable Congress to give to the subject the consideration which its great importance demands, most earnestly to call its attention to the propriety of making further provision for the public service of the year.

The proper objects of taxation are peculiarly within the discretion of the Legislature, while it is the duty of the Executive to keep Congress duly advised of the state of the Treasury and to admonish it of any danger which there may be ground to apprehend of a failure in the means of meeting the expenditures authorized by law.

I ought not, therefore, to dissemble my fears that there will be a serious falling off in the estimated proceeds both of the customs and the public lands. I regard the evil of disappointment in these respects as altogether too great to be risked if by any possibility it may be entirely obviated.

While I am far from objecting, under present circumstances, to the recommendation of the Secretary that authority be granted him to reissue Treasury notes as they shall be redeemed, and to other suggestions which he has made on this subject, yet it appears to me to be worthy of grave consideration whether more permanent and certain supplies ought not to be provided. The issue of one note in redemption of another is not the payment of a debt, which must be made in the end by some form of public taxation.

I can not forbear to add that in a country so full of resources, of such abundant means if they be but judiciously called out, the revenues of the Government, its credit, and its ability to fulfill all its obligations ought not to be made dependent on temporary expedients or on calculations of an uncertain character. The public faith in this or in all things else ought to be placed beyond question and beyond contingency.

The necessity of further and full provision for supplying the wants of the Treasury will be the more urgent if Congress at this present session should adopt no plan for facilitating the financial operations of the Government and improving the currency of the country. By the aid of a wise and efficient measure of that kind not only would the internal business and prosperity of the country be revived and invigorated, but important additions to the amount of revenue arising from importations might also be confidently expected. Not only does the present condition of things in relation to the currency and commercial exchanges produce severe and distressing embarrassments in the business and pursuits of individuals, but its obvious tendency is to create also a necessity for the imposition of new burdens of taxation in order to secure the Government and the country against discredit from the failure of means to fulfill the public engagements.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _February 18, 1843_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

A resolution has been communicated to me, which was adopted by the House of Representatives on the 2d instant, in the following terms:

_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be requested to
inform this House by what authority and under whose instructions
Captain Thomas ap Catesby Jones, commander of the squadron of the United
States in the Pacific Ocean, did, on or about the 19th of October last,
invade in warlike array the territories of the Mexican Republic, take
possession of the town of Monterey, and declare himself the commander of
the naval and military expedition for the occupation of the Californias.

_Resolved_, That the President of the United States be requested to
communicate to this House copies of all the instructions given by him
or under his authority to the said Captain Jones from the time of his
appointment to the command of the said squadron; also copies of all
communications received from him relating to his expedition for the
occupation of the Californias; and also to inform this House whether
orders have been dispatched to the said Captain Jones recalling him
from his command.

The proceeding of Captain Jones in taking possession of the town of Monterey, in the possessions of Mexico, was entirely of his own authority, and not in consequence of any orders or instructions of any kind given to him by the Government of the United States. For that proceeding he has been recalled, and the letter recalling him will be found among the papers herewith communicated.

The resolution of the House of Representatives asks for "copies of all the instructions given to Captain Jones from the time of his appointment to the command of the said squadron, also copies of all communications received from him relating to his expedition for the occupation of the Californias," without confining the request to such instructions and correspondence as relate to the transactions at Monterey, and without the usual reservation of such portions of the instructions or correspondence as in the President's judgment could not be made public without prejudice or danger to the public interests.

It may well be supposed that cases may arise even in time of peace in which it would be highly injurious to the country to make public at a particular moment the instructions under which a commander may be acting on a distant and foreign service. In such a case, should it arise, and in all similar cases the discretion of the Executive can not be controlled by the request of either House of Congress for the communication of papers. The duties which the Constitution and the laws devolve on the President must be performed by him under his official responsibility, and he is not at liberty to disregard high interests or thwart important public objects by untimely publications made against his own judgment, by whomsoever such publications may be requested. In the present case, not seeing that any injury is likely to arise from so doing, I have directed copies of all the papers asked for to be communicated; and I avail of the opportunity of transmitting also copies of sundry letters, as noted below.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _February 20, 1843_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit to the House of Representatives a report from the Secretary of State, accompanied by a copy of the correspondence[88] requested by their resolution of the 29th of December last.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 88: Between the consul-general of the United States at Tangier and the Government of Morocco.]

WASHINGTON, _February 20, 1843_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate a report[89] from the Secretary of State, in answer to their resolution of the 14th instant.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 89: Communicating a copy of the commission and instructions issued to Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, to treat with Lord Ashburton, special minister from Great Britain to the United States.]

WASHINGTON, _February 24, 1843_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, in answer to their resolutions of the 20th of December and of the 9th instant, the inclosed copies of papers[90] from the Department of State, with an accompanying list.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 90: Correspondence with the United States minister to France relative to the quintuple treaty of December 20, 1841, and the Ashburton treaty of August 9, 1842.]

WASHINGTON, _February 27, 1843_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 22d instant, requesting me to communicate to the House "whatever correspondence or communication may have been received from the British Government respecting the President's construction of the late British treaty concluded at Washington as it concerns an alleged right to visit American vessels," I herewith transmit a report made to me by the Secretary of State.

I have also thought proper to communicate copies of Lord Aberdeen's letter of the 20th December, 1841, to Mr. Everett, Mr. Everett's letter of the 23d December in reply thereto, and extracts from several letters of Mr. Everett to the Secretary of State.

I can not forego the expression of my regret at the apparent purport of a part of Lord Aberdeen's dispatch to Mr. Fox. I had cherished the hope that all possibility of misunderstanding as to the true construction of the eighth article of the treaty lately concluded between Great Britain and the United States was precluded by the plain and well-weighed language in which it is expressed. The desire of both Governments is to put an end as speedily as possible to the slave trade, and that desire, I need scarcely add, is as strongly and as sincerely felt by the United States as it can be by Great Britain. Yet it must not be forgotten that the trade, though now universally reprobated, was up to a late period prosecuted by all who chose to engage in it, and there were unfortunately but very few Christian powers whose subjects were not permitted, and even encouraged, to share in the profits of what was regarded as a perfectly legitimate commerce. It originated at a period long before the United States had become independent and was carried on within our borders in opposition to the most earnest remonstrances and expostulations of some of the colonies in which it was most actively prosecuted. Those engaged in it were as little liable to inquiry or interruption as any others. Its character, thus fixed by common consent and general practice, could only be changed by the positive assent of each and every nation, expressed either in the form of municipal law or conventional arrangement. The United States led the way in efforts to suppress it. They claimed no right to dictate to others, but they resolved, without waiting for the cooperation of other powers, to prohibit it to their own citizens and to visit its perpetration by them with condign punishment. I may safely affirm that it never occurred to this Government that any new maritime right accrued to it from the position it had thus assumed in regard to the slave trade. If before our laws for its suppression the flag of every nation might traverse the ocean unquestioned by our cruisers, this freedom was not, in our opinion, in the least abridged by our municipal legislation.

Any other doctrine, it is plain, would subject to an arbitrary and ever-varying system of maritime police, adopted at will by the great naval power for the time being, the trade of the world in any places or in any articles which such power might see fit to prohibit to its own subjects or citizens. A principle of this kind could scarcely be acknowledged without subjecting commerce to the risk of constant and harassing vexations.

The attempt to justify such a pretension from the right to visit and detain ships upon reasonable suspicion of piracy would deservedly be exposed to universal condemnation, since it would be an attempt to convert an established rule of maritime law, incorporated as a principle into the international code by the consent of all nations, into a rule and principle adopted by a single nation and enforced only by its assumed authority. To seize and detain a ship upon suspicion of piracy, with probable cause and in good faith, affords no just ground either for complaint on the part of the nation whose flag she bears or claim of indemnity on the part of the owner. The universal law sanctions and the common good requires the existence of such a rule. The right under such circumstances not only to visit and detain but to search a ship is a perfect right and involves neither responsibility nor indemnity. But, with this single exception, no nation has in time of peace any authority to detain the ships of another upon the high seas on any pretext whatever beyond the limits of her territorial jurisdiction. And such, I am happy to find, is substantially the doctrine of Great Britain herself in her most recent official declarations, and even in those now communicated to the House. These declarations may well lead us to doubt whether the apparent difference between the two Governments is not rather one of definition than of principle. Not only is the right of _search_, properly so called, disclaimed by Great Britain, but even that of mere visit and inquiry is asserted with qualifications inconsistent with the idea of a perfect right.

In the dispatch of Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Everett of the 20th of December, 1841, as also in that just received by the British minister in this country made to Mr. Fox, his lordship declares that if in spite of all the precaution which shall be used to prevent such occurrences an American ship, by reason of any visit or detention by a British cruiser, "should suffer loss and injury, it would be followed by prompt and ample remuneration;" and in order to make more manifest her intentions in this respect, Lord Aberdeen in the dispatch of the 20th December makes known to Mr. Everett the nature of the instructions given to the British cruisers. These are such as, if faithfully observed, would enable the British Government to approximate the standard of a fair indemnity. That Government has in several cases fulfilled her promises in this particular by making adequate reparation for damage done to our commerce. It seems obvious to remark that a right which is only to be exercised under such restrictions and precautions and risk, in case of any assignable damage to be followed by the consequences of a trespass, can scarcely be considered anything more than a privilege asked for and either conceded or withheld on the usual principles of international comity.

The principles laid down in Lord Aberdeen's dispatches and the assurances of indemnity therein held out, although the utmost reliance was placed on the good faith of the British Government, were not regarded by the Executive as a sufficient security against the abuses which Lord Aberdeen admitted might arise in even the most cautious and moderate exercise of their new maritime police, and therefore in my message at the opening of the last session I set forth the views entertained by the Executive on this subject, and substantially affirmed both our inclination and ability to enforce our own laws, protect our flag from abuse, and acquit ourselves of all our duties and obligations on the high seas. In view of these assertions the treaty of Washington was negotiated, and upon consultation with the British negotiator as to the quantum of force necessary to be employed in order to attain these objects, the result to which the most deliberate estimate led was embodied in the eighth article of the treaty.

Such were my views at the time of negotiating that treaty, and such, in my opinion, is its plain and fair interpretation. I regarded the eighth article as removing all possible pretext on the ground of mere necessity to visit and detain our ships upon the African coast because of any alleged abuse of our flag by slave traders of other nations. We had taken upon ourselves the burden of preventing any such abuse by stipulating to furnish an armed force regarded by both the high contracting parties as sufficient to accomplish that object.

Denying as we did and do all color of right to exercise any such general police over the flags of independent nations, we did not demand of Great Britain any formal renunciation of her pretension; still less had we the idea of yielding anything ourselves in that respect. We chose to make a practical settlement of the question. This we owed to what we had already done upon this subject. The honor of the country called for it; the honor of its flag demanded that it should not be used by others to cover an iniquitous traffic. This Government, I am very sure, has both the inclination and the ability to do this; and if need be it will not content itself with a fleet of eighty guns, but sooner than any foreign government shall exercise the province of executing its laws and fulfilling its obligations, the highest of which is to protect its flag alike from abuse or insult, it would, I doubt not, put in requisition for that purpose its whole naval power. The purpose of this Government is faithfully to fulfill the treaty on its part, and it will not permit itself to doubt that Great Britain will comply with it on hers. In this way peace will best be preserved and the most amicable relations maintained between the two countries.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _February 27, 1843_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit to Congress sundry letters which have passed between the Department of State and the Chevalier d'Argaïz, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Spain near the Government of the United States, on the subject of the schooner _Amistad_ since the last communication of papers connected with that case. This correspondence will show the general grounds on which the Spanish minister expresses dissatisfaction with the decision of the Supreme Court in that case and the answers which have been made to his complaints by the Department of State.

In laying these papers before Congress I think it proper to observe that the allowance of salvage on the cargo does not appear to have been a subject of discussion in the Supreme Court. Salvage had been denied in the court below and from that part of the decree no appeal had been claimed.

The ninth article of the treaty between the United States and Spain provides that "all ships and merchandise of what nature soever which shall be rescued out of the hands of any pirates or robbers on the high seas shall be brought into some port of either State and shall be delivered to the custody of the officers of that port in order to be taken care of and restored entire to the true proprietor as soon as due and sufficient proof shall be made concerning the property thereof." The case of the _Amistad_, as was decided by the court, was not a case of piracy, and therefore not within the terms of the treaty; yet it was a case in which the authority of the master, officers, and crew of the vessel had been divested by force, and in that condition the vessel, having been found on the coast, was brought into a port of the United States; and it may deserve consideration that the salvors in this case were the officers and seamen of a public ship.

It is left to Congress to consider, under these circumstances, whether, although in strictness salvage may have been lawfully due, it might not yet be wise to make provision to refund it, as a proof of the entire good faith of the Government and of its disposition to fulfill all its treaty stipulations to their full extent under a fair and liberal construction.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _February 28, 1843_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to ratification, a convention further to provide for the payment of awards in favor of claimants under the convention between the United States and the Mexican Republic of the 11th of April, 1839, signed in the City of Mexico on the 30th day of last month. A copy of the instructions from the Department of State to the minister of the United States at Mexico relative to the convention and of the dispatches of that minister to the Department is also communicated. By adverting to the signatures appended to the original draft of the convention as transmitted from the Department of State to General Thompson it will be seen that the convention as concluded was substantially approved by the representatives of a large majority in value of the parties immediately interested.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _February 28, 1843_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I communicate to the House of Representatives a report from the Secretary of State, which, with the documents[91] accompanying it, furnishes the information requested by their resolution of the 18th instant.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 91: Correspondence between the representatives of foreign governments and the United States relative to the operation of the tariff laws on treaties existing with foreign governments.]

WASHINGTON, _March 3, 1843_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In submitting the name of Henry A. Wise to the Senate for the mission to France, I was led to do so by considerations of his high talent, his exalted character, and great moral worth. The country, I feel assured, would be represented at Paris in the person of Mr. Wise by one wholly unsurpassed in exalted patriotism and well fitted to be the representative of his country abroad. His rejection by the Senate has caused me to reconsider his qualifications, and I see no cause to doubt that he is eminently qualified for the station. I feel it, therefore, to be my duty to renominate him.

I nominate Henry A. Wise, of Virginia, to be envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the Court of His Majesty the King of the French, in place of Lewis Cass, resigned.

JOHN TYLER.

MARCH 3, 1843.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In submitting to you the name of Caleb Cushing as Secretary of the Treasury, I did so in full view of his consummate abilities, his unquestioned patriotism and full capacity to discharge with honor to himself and advantage to the country the high and important duties appertaining to that Department of the Government. The respect which I have for the wisdom of the Senate has caused me again, since his rejection, to reconsider his merits and his qualifications. That review has satisfied me that I could not have a more able adviser in the administration of public affairs or the country a more faithful officer. I feel it, therefore, to be my duty to renominate him.

I nominate Caleb Gushing to be Secretary of the Treasury, in the place of Walter Forward, resigned.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _March 3, 1843_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

I herewith transmit to the House of Representatives copies of the final report and appendices of the joint commission appointed to explore and survey the boundary line between the States of Maine and New Hampshire and the adjoining British Provinces, together with a general map showing the results of their labors.

JOHN TYLER.

_Report of the commissioners appointed by the President of the United States for the purpose of exploring and surveying the boundary line between the States of Maine and New Hampshire and the British Provinces_.[92]

[Footnote 92: This report proper and Appendix No. 1 are the only portions of the original final report which can be found filed with the archives of the commission. The copy of the report which was transmitted to the House of Representatives is missing from the files of the House. A careful search in the Government libraries of Washington warrants me in asserting that the report has never been printed.--COMPILER.]

WASHINGTON, _January 27, 1843_.

Hon. DANIEL WEBSTER,

_Secretary of State_.

SIR: The operations of the divisions under the direction of the several commissioners during the past season have been as follows, viz: