Chapter III (5)

In answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 3d of January last, requesting the President of the United States "to cause to be communicated to that House copies of all the instructions given to the commanding officers of the squadron stipulated by the treaty with Great Britain of 9th of August, 1842, to be kept on the coast of Africa for the suppression of the slave trade," and also copies of the "instructions given by the British Government to their squadron stipulated by the same, if such instructions have been communicated to this Government," I have to inform the House of Representatives that in my opinion it would be incompatible with the public interests to communicate to that body at this time copies of the instructions referred to.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _May 20, 1844_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 22d ultimo, I communicate a report[127] from the Secretary of State, which embraces the information called for by said resolution.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 127: Relating to indemnity from Denmark for three ships and their cargoes sent by Commodore John Paul Jones in 1779 as prizes into Bergen, and there surrendered by order of the Danish King to the British minister, in obedience to the demand of that minister.]

WASHINGTON, _May 20. 1844_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith transmit a letter from the Secretary of the Navy, accompanied by a report from the Bureau of Construction and Equipment and a communication from Lieutenant Hunter, of the Navy, prepared at the request of the Secretary, upon the subject of a plan for the establishment in connection with the Government of France of a line of steamers between the ports of Havre and New York, with estimates of the expense which may be necessary to carry the said plan into effect.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _May 23, 1844_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

Your resolution of the 18th instant, adopted in _executive_ session, addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury _ad interim_, has been communicated to me by that officer. While I can not recognize this call thus made on the head of a Department as consistent with the constitutional rights of the Senate when acting in its executive capacity, which in such case can only properly hold correspondence with the President of the United States, nevertheless, from an anxious desire to lay before the Senate all such information as may be necessary to enable it with full understanding to act upon any subject which may be before it, I herewith transmit communications[128] which have been made to me by the Secretaries of the War and Navy Departments, in full answer to the resolution of the Senate.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 128: Relating to money drawn from the Treasury to carry into effect orders of the War and Navy Departments made since April 12, 1844, for stationing troops or increasing the military force upon the frontiers of Texas and the Gulf of Mexico and for placing a naval force in the Gulf of Mexico, etc.]

WASHINGTON CITY, D.C., _May 24, 1844_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

I transmit herewith a report[129] from the Secretary of the Navy, in compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 18th of January last.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 129: Transmitting list of persons employed by the Navy Department without express authority of law from March 4, 1837, to January 18, 1844, etc.]

WASHINGTON, _May 31, 1844_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 22d instant, requesting information in regard to any promise by the President of military or other aid to Texas in the event of an agreement on the part of that Republic to annex herself to the United States, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the documents by which it was accompanied.

In my message to the Senate of the 15th of this month I adverted to the duty which, in my judgment, the signature of the treaty for the annexation of Texas had imposed upon me, to repel any invasion of that country by a foreign power while the treaty was under consideration by the Senate, and I transmitted reports from the Secretaries of War and of the Navy, with a copy of the orders which had been issued from those Departments for the purpose of enabling me to execute that duty. In those orders General Taylor was directed to communicate directly with the President of Texas upon the subject, and Captain Conner was instructed to communicate with the chargé d'affaires of the United States accredited to that Government. No copy of any communication which either of those officers may have made pursuant to those orders has yet been received at the Departments from which they emanated.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _June 1, 1844_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith to the Senate a copy of a letter dated the 25th of August, 1829, addressed by Mr. Van Buren, Secretary of State, to Mr. Poinsett, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States to Mexico, which letter contains, it is presumed, the instructions a copy of which was requested by the resolution of the Senate of the 28th ultimo in executive session.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _June 3, 1844_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 28th ultimo, upon the subject of a "private letter" quoted in the instruction from the late Mr. Upshur to the chargé d'affaires of the United States in Texas, dated the 8th of August last, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, to whom the resolution was referred.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _June 4, 1844_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of yesterday in executive session, requesting a copy of a note supposed to have been addressed to the Secretary of State by the diplomatic agents of the Republic of Texas accredited to this Government, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, to whom the resolution was referred.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _June 5, 1844_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith transmit to the Senate, with reference to previous Executive communications to that body relating to the same subject, the copy of a letter[130] recently received at the Department of State from the minister of the United States in London.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 130: Relating to the treaty of annexation with Texas.]

WASHINGTON, _June 7, 1844_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

I herewith transmit to the House of Representatives the copy of a letter recently addressed to the Secretary of State by the British minister at Washington, with the view of ascertaining "whether it would be agreeable to this Government that an arrangement should be concluded for the transmission through the United States of the mails to and from Canada and England which are now landed at Halifax and thence forwarded through the British dominions to their destination."

It will be perceived that this communication has been referred to the Postmaster-General, and his opinion respecting the proposition will accordingly be found in his letter to the Department of State of the 5th instant, a copy of which is inclosed. I lose no time in recommending the subject to the favorable consideration of the House and in bespeaking for it early attention.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _June 8, 1844_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 29th of April last, I communicate to that body a report[131] from the Secretary of State, which embraces the information called for by that resolution.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 131: Transmitting correspondence from 1816 to 1820, inclusive, between United States ministers to Spain and the Department of State, between those ministers and Spanish secretaries of state, and between the Department of State and the Spanish ministers accredited to the United States.]

WASHINGTON, _June 10, 1844_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

The treaty negotiated by the Executive with the Republic of Texas, without a departure from any form of proceeding customarily observed in the negotiations of treaties for the annexation of that Republic to the United States, having been rejected by the Senate, and the subject having excited on the part of the people no ordinary degree of interest, I feel it to be my duty to communicate, for your consideration, the rejected treaty, together with all the correspondence and documents which have heretofore been submitted to the Senate in its executive sessions. The papers communicated embrace not only the series already made public by orders of the Senate, but others from which the veil of secrecy has not been removed by that body, but which I deem to be essential to a just appreciation of the entire question. While the treaty was pending before the Senate I did not consider it compatible with the just rights of that body or consistent with the respect entertained for it to bring this important subject before you. The power of Congress is, however, fully competent in some other form of proceeding to accomplish everything that a formal ratification of the treaty could have accomplished, and I therefore feel that I should but imperfectly discharge my duty to yourselves or the country if I failed to lay before you everything in the possession of the Executive which would enable you to act with full light on the subject if you should deem it proper to take any action upon it.

I regard the question involved in these proceedings as one of vast magnitude and as addressing itself to interests of an elevated and enduring character. A Republic coterminous in territory with our own, of immense resources, which require only to be brought under the influence of our confederate and free system in order to be fully developed, promising at no distant day, through the fertility of its soil, nearly, if not entirely, to duplicate the exports of the country, thereby making an addition to the carrying trade to an amount almost incalculable and giving a new impulse of immense importance to the commercial, manufacturing, agricultural, and shipping interests of the Union, and at the same time affording protection to an exposed frontier and placing the whole country in a condition of security and repose; a territory settled mostly by emigrants from the United States, who would bring back with them in the act of reassociation an unconquerable love of freedom and an ardent attachment to our free institutions--such a question could not fail to interest most deeply in its success those who under the Constitution have become responsible for the faithful administration of public affairs. I have regarded it as not a little fortunate that the question involved was no way sectional or local, but addressed itself to the interests of every part of the country and made its appeal to the glory of the American name.

It is due to the occasion to say that I have carefully reconsidered the objections which have been urged to immediate action upon the subject without in any degree having been struck by their force. It has been objected that the measure of annexation should be preceded by the consent of Mexico. To preserve the most friendly relations with Mexico; to concede to her, not grudgingly, but freely, all her rights; to negotiate fairly and frankly with her as to the question of boundary; to render her, in a word, the fullest and most ample recompense for any loss she might convince us she had sustained, fully accords with the feelings and views the Executive has always entertained.

But negotiation in advance of annexation would prove not only abortive, but might be regarded as offensive to Mexico and insulting to Texas. Mexico would not, I am persuaded, give ear for a moment to an attempt at negotiation in advance except for the whole territory of Texas. While all the world beside regards Texas as an independent power, Mexico chooses to look upon her as a revolted province. Nor could we negotiate with Mexico for Texas without admitting that our recognition of her independence was fraudulent, delusive, or void. It is only after acquiring Texas that the question of boundary can arise between the United States and Mexico--a question purposely left open for negotiation with Mexico as affording the best opportunity for the most friendly and pacific arrangements. The Executive has dealt with Texas as a power independent of all others, both _de facto_ and _de jure_. She was an independent State of the Confederation of Mexican Republics. When by violent revolution Mexico declared the Confederation at an end, Texas owed her no longer allegiance, but claimed and has maintained the right for eight years to a separate and distinct position. During that period no army has invaded her with a view to her reconquest; and if she has not yet established her right to be treated as a nation independent _de facto_ and _de jure_, it would be difficult to say at what period she will attain to that condition.

Nor can we by any fair or any legitimate inference be accused of violating any treaty stipulations with Mexico. The treaties with Mexico give no guaranty of any sort and are coexistent with a similar treaty with Texas. So have we treaties with most of the nations of the earth which are equally as much violated by the annexation of Texas to the United States as would be our treaty with Mexico. The treaty is merely commercial and intended as the instrument for more accurately defining the rights and securing the interests of the citizens of each country. What bad faith can be implied or charged upon the Government of the United States for successfully negotiating with an independent power upon any subject not violating the stipulations of such treaty I confess my inability to discern.

The objections which have been taken to the enlargement of our territory were urged with much zeal against the acquisition of Louisiana, and yet the futility of such has long since been fully demonstrated. Since that period a new power has been introduced into the affairs of the world, which has for all practical purposes brought Texas much nearer to the seat of Government than Louisiana was at the time of its annexation. Distant regions are by the application of the steam engine brought within a close proximity.

With the views which I entertain on the subject, I should prove faithless to the high trust which the Constitution has devolved upon me if I neglected to invite the attention of the representatives of the people to it at the earliest moment that a due respect for the Senate would allow me so to do. I should find in the urgency of the matter a sufficient apology, if one was wanting, since annexation is to encounter a great, if not certain, hazard of final defeat if something be not _now_ done to prevent it. Upon this point I can not too impressively invite your attention to my message of the 16th of May and to the documents which accompany it, which have not heretofore been made public. If it be objected that the names of the writers of some of the private letters are withheld, all that I can say is that it is done for reasons regarded as altogether adequate, and that the writers are persons of the first respectability and citizens of Texas, and have such means of obtaining information as to entitle their statements to full credit. Nor has anything occurred to weaken, but, on the contrary, much to confirm, my confidence in the statements of General Jackson, and my own statement, made at the close of that message, in the belief, amounting almost to certainty, "that instructions have already been given by the Texan Government to propose to the Government of Great Britain, forthwith on the failure [of the treaty], to enter into a treaty of commerce and an alliance offensive and defensive."

I also particularly invite your attention to the letter from Mr. Everett, our envoy at London, containing an account of a conversation in the House of Lords which lately occurred between Lord Brougham and Lord Aberdeen in relation to the question of annexation. Nor can I do so without the expression of some surprise at the language of the minister of foreign affairs employed upon the occasion. That a Kingdom which is made what it now is by repeated acts of annexation--beginning with the time of the heptarchy and concluding with the annexation of the Kingdoms of Ireland and Scotland--should perceive any principle either novel or serious in the late proceedings of the American Executive in regard to Texas is well calculated to excite surprise. If it be pretended that because of commercial or political relations which may exist between the two countries neither has a right to part with its sovereignty, and that no third power can change those relations by a voluntary treaty of union or annexation, then it would seem to follow that an annexation to be achieved by force of arms in the prosecution of a just and necessary war could in no way be justified; and yet it is presumed that Great Britain would be the last nation in the world to maintain any such doctrine. The commercial and political relations of many of the countries of Europe have undergone repeated changes by voluntary treaties, by conquest, and by partitions of their territories without any question as to the right under the public law. The question, in this view of it, can be considered as neither "serious" nor "novel." I will not permit myself to believe that the British minister designed to bring himself to any such conclusion, but it is impossible for us to be blind to the fact that the statements contained in Mr. Everett's dispatch are well worthy of serious consideration. The Government and people of the United States have never evinced nor do they feel any desire to interfere in public questions not affecting the relations existing between the States of the American continent. We leave the European powers exclusive control over matters affecting their continent and the relations of their different States; the United States claim a similar exemption from any such interference on their part. The treaty with Texas was negotiated from considerations of high public policy, influencing the conduct of the two Republics. We have treated with Texas as an independent power solely with a view of bettering the condition of the two countries. If annexation in any form occur, it will arise from the free and unfettered action of the people of the two countries; and it seems altogether becoming in me to say that the honor of the country, the dignity of the American name, and the permanent interests of the United States would forbid acquiescence in any such interference. No one can more highly appreciate the value of peace to both Great Britain and the United States and the capacity of each to do injury to the other than myself, but peace can best be preserved by maintaining firmly the rights which belong to us as an independent community.

So much have I considered it proper for me to say; and it becomes me only to add that while I have regarded the annexation to be accomplished by treaty as the most suitable form in which it could be effected, should Congress deem it proper to resort to any other expedient compatible with the Constitution and likely to accomplish the object I stand prepared to yield my most prompt and active cooperation.

The great question is not as to the manner in which it shall be done, but whether it shall be accomplished or not.

The responsibility of deciding this question is now devolved upon you.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _June 10, 1844_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 7th instant, upon the subject of the supposed employment of Mr. Duff Green in Europe by the Executive of the United States, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, to whom the resolution was referred.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _June 12, 1844_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 4th instant, calling for a correspondence[132] between the late minister of the United States in Mexico and the minister for foreign affairs of that Republic, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the documents by which it was accompanied.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 132: On the subject of an order issued by the Mexican Government expelling all natives of the United States from Upper California and other departments of the Mexican Republic, and of the order prohibiting foreigners the privilege of the retail trade in Mexico.]

WASHINGTON, _June, 12, 1844_.

_To the Senate of the United States_;

The resolution of the Senate of the 3d instant, requesting the President to lay before that body, confidentially, "a copy of any instructions which may have been given by the Executive to the American minister in England on the subject of the title to and occupation of the Territory of Oregon since the 4th of March, 1841; also a copy of any correspondence which may have passed between this Government and that of Great Britain in relation to the subject since that time," has been received.

In reply I have to state that in the present state of the subject-matter to which the resolution refers it is deemed inexpedient to communicate the information requested by the Senate.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _June 15, 1844_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

I herewith transmit to the House of Representatives, in answer to their resolution of the 4th instant, a report from the Secretary of State, with the correspondence[133] therein referred to.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 133: With Great Britain relative to the duties exacted by that Government on rough rice exported from the United States, contrary to the treaty of 1815.]

WASHINGTON, _June 17, 1844_.

The PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, in answer to a resolution of the 12th instant. Although the contingent fund for foreign intercourse has for all time been placed at the disposal of the President, to be expended for the purposes contemplated by the fund without any requisition upon him for a disclosure of the names of persons employed by him, the objects of their employment, or the amount paid to any particular person, and although any such disclosures might in many cases disappoint the objects contemplated by the appropriation of that fund, yet in this particular instance I feel no desire to withhold the fact that Mr. Duff Green was employed by the Executive to collect such information, from private or other sources, as was deemed important to assist the Executive in undertaking a negotiation then contemplated, but afterwards abandoned, upon an important subject, and that there was paid to him through the hands of the Secretary of State $1,000, in full for all such service. It is proper to say that Mr. Green afterwards presented a claim for an additional allowance, which has been neither allowed nor recognized as correct.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _June 17, 1844_.

_To the Senate_:

I have learned that the Senate has laid on the table the nomination, heretofore made, of Reuben H. Walworth to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court, in the place of Smith Thompson, deceased. I am informed that a large amount of business has accumulated in the second district, and that the immediate appointment of a judge for that circuit is essential to the administration of justice. Under these circumstances I feel it my duty to withdraw the name of Mr. Walworth, whose appointment the Senate by their action seems not now prepared to confirm, in the hope that another name may be more acceptable.

The circumstances under which the Senate heretofore declined to advise and consent to the nomination of John C. Spencer have so far changed as to justify me in my again submitting his name to their consideration.

I therefore nominate John C. Spencer, of New York, to be appointed an associate justice of the Supreme Court, in the place of Smith Thompson, deceased.

JOHN TYLER.

VETO MESSAGES.[134]

[Footnote 134: The first is a pocket veto.]

WASHINGTON, _December 18, 1843_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I received within a few hours of the adjournment of the last Congress a resolution "directing payment of the certificates or awards issued by the commissioners under the treaty with the Cherokee Indians." Its provisions involved principles of great importance, in reference to which it required more time to obtain the necessary information than was allowed.

The balance of the fund provided by Congress for satisfying claims under the seventeenth article of the Cherokee treaty, referred to in the resolution, is wholly insufficient to meet the claims still pending. To direct the payment, therefore, of the whole amount of those claims which happened to be first adjudicated would prevent a ratable distribution of the fund among those equally entitled to its benefits. Such a violation of the individual rights of the claimants would impose upon the Government the obligation of making further appropriations to indemnify them, and thus Congress would be obliged to enlarge a provision, liberal and equitable, which it had made for the satisfaction of all the demands of the Cherokees. I was unwilling to sanction a measure which would thus indirectly overturn the adjustment of our differences with the Cherokees, accomplished with so much difficulty, and to which time is reconciling those Indians.

If no such indemnity should be provided, then a palpable and very gross wrong would be inflicted upon the claimants who had not been so fortunate as to have their claims taken up in preference to others. Besides, the fund having been appropriated by law to a specific purpose, in fulfillment of the treaty, it belongs to the Cherokees, and the authority of this Government to direct its application to particular claims is more than questionable.

The direction in the joint resolution, therefore, to pay the awards of the commissioners to the amount of $100,000 seemed to me quite objectionable, and could not be approved.

The further direction that the certificates required to be issued by the treaty, and in conformity with the practice of the board heretofore, shall be proper and sufficient vouchers, upon which payments shall be made at the Treasury, is a departure from the system established soon after the adoption of the Constitution and maintained ever since. That system requires that payments under the authority of any Department shall be made upon its requisition, countersigned by the proper Auditor and Comptroller. The greatest irregularity would ensue from the mode of payment prescribed by the resolution.

I have deemed it respectful and proper to lay before the House of Representatives these reasons for having withheld my approval of the above-mentioned joint resolution.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _June 11, 1844_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

I return to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, the bill entitled "An act making appropriations for the improvement of certain harbors and rivers," with the following objections to its becoming a law:

At the adoption of the Constitution each State was possessed of a separate and independent sovereignty and an exclusive jurisdiction over all streams and water courses within its territorial limits. The Articles of Confederation in no way affected this authority or jurisdiction, and the present Constitution, adopted for the purpose of correcting the defects which existed in the original Articles, expressly reserves to the States all powers not delegated. No such surrender of jurisdiction is made by the States to this Government by any express grant, and if it is possessed it is to be deduced from the clause in the Constitution which invests Congress with authority "to make all laws which are necessary and proper for carrying into execution" the granted powers. There is, in my view of the subject, no pretense whatever for the claim to power which the bill now returned substantially sets up. The inferential power, in order to be legitimate, must be clearly and plainly incidental to some granted power and necessary to its exercise. To refer it to the head of convenience or usefulness would be to throw open the door to a boundless and unlimited discretion and to invest Congress with an unrestrained authority. The power to remove obstructions from the water courses of the States is claimed under the granted power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, _among the several States_, and with the Indian tribes;" but the plain and obvious meaning of this grant is that Congress may adopt rules and regulations prescribing the terms and conditions on which the citizens of the United States may carry on commercial operations with foreign states or kingdoms, and on which the citizens or subjects of foreign states or kingdoms may prosecute trade with the United States or either of them. And so the power to regulate commerce _among the several States_ no more invests Congress with jurisdiction over the water courses of the States than the first branch of the grant does over the water courses of foreign powers, which would be an absurdity.

The right of common use of the people of the United States to the navigable waters of each and every State arises from the express stipulation contained in the Constitution that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." While, therefore, the navigation of any river in any State is by the laws of such State allowed to the citizens thereof, the same is also secured by the Constitution of the United States on the same terms and conditions to the citizens of every other State; and so of any other privilege or immunity.

The application of the revenue of this Government, if the power to do so was admitted, to improving the navigation of the rivers by removing obstructions or otherwise would be for the most part productive only of local benefit. The consequences might prove disastrously ruinous to as many of our fellow-citizens as the exercise of such power would benefit. I will take one instance furnished by the present bill--out of no invidious feeling, for such it would be impossible for me to feel, but because of my greater familiarity with locations--in illustration of the above opinion: Twenty thousand dollars are proposed to be appropriated toward improving the harbor of Richmond, in the State of Virginia. Such improvement would furnish advantages to the city of Richmond and add to the value of the property of its citizens, while it might have a most disastrous influence over the wealth and prosperity of Petersburg, which is situated some 25 miles distant on a branch of James River, and which now enjoys its fair portion of the trade. So, too, the improvement of James River to Richmond and of the Appomattox to Petersburg might, by inviting the trade to those two towns, have the effect of prostrating the town of Norfolk. This, too, might be accomplished without adding a single vessel to the number now engaged in the trade of the Chesapeake Bay or bringing into the Treasury a dollar of additional revenue. It would produce, most probably, the single effect of concentrating the commerce now profitably enjoyed by three places upon one of them. This case furnishes an apt illustration of the effect of this bill in several other particulars.

There can not, in fact, be drawn the slightest discrimination between the improving the streams of a State under the power to regulate commerce and the most extended system of internal improvements on land. The excavating a canal and paving a road are equally as much incidents to such claim of power as the removing obstructions from water courses; nor can such power be restricted by any fair course of reasoning to the mere fact of making the improvement. It reasonably extends also to the right of seeking a return of the means expended through the exaction of tolls and the levying of contributions. Thus, while the Constitution denies to this Government the privilege of acquiring a property in the soil of any State, even for the purpose of erecting a necessary fortification, without a grant from such State, this claim to power would invest it with control and dominion over the waters and soil of each State without restriction. Power so incongruous can not exist in the same instrument.

The bill is also liable to a serious objection because of its blending appropriations for numerous objects but few of which agree in their general features. This necessarily produces the effect of embarrassing Executive action. Some of the appropriations would receive my sanction if separated from the rest, however much I might deplore the reproduction of a system which for some time past has been permitted to sleep with apparently the acquiescence of the country. I might particularize the Delaware Breakwater as an improvement which looks to the security from the storms of our extended Atlantic seaboard of the vessels of all the country engaged either in the foreign or the coastwise trade, as well as to the safety of the revenue; but when, in connection with that, the same bill embraces improvements of rivers at points far in the interior, connected alone with the trade of such river and the exertion of mere local influences, no alternative is left me but to use the qualified veto with which the Executive is invested by the Constitution, and to return the bill to the House in which it originated for its ultimate reconsideration and decision.

In sanctioning a bill of the same title with that returned, for the improvement of the Mississippi and its chief tributaries and certain harbors on the Lakes, if I bring myself apparently in conflict with any of the principles herein asserted it will arise on my part exclusively from the want of a just appreciation of localities. The Mississippi occupies a footing altogether different from the rivers and water courses of the different States. No one State or any number of States can exercise any other jurisdiction over it than for the punishment of crimes and the service of civil process. It belongs to no particular State or States, but of common right, by express reservation, to all the States. It is reserved as a great common highway for the commerce of the whole country. To have conceded to Louisiana, or to any other State admitted as a new State into the Union, the exclusive jurisdiction, and consequently the right to make improvements and to levy tolls on the segments of the river embraced within its territorial limits, would have been to have disappointed the chief object in the purchase of Louisiana, which was to secure the free use of the Mississippi to all the people of the United States. Whether levies on commerce were made by a foreign or domestic government would have been equally burdensome and objectionable. The United States, therefore, is charged with its improvement for the benefit of all, and the appropriation of governmental means to its improvement becomes indispensably necessary for the good of all.

As to the harbors on the Lakes, the act originates no new improvements, but makes appropriations for the continuance of works already begun.

It is as much the duty of the Government to construct good harbors, without reference to the location or interests of cities, for the shelter of the extensive commerce of the Lakes as to build breakwaters on the Atlantic coast for the protection of the trade of that ocean. These great inland seas are visited by destructive storms, and the annual loss of ships and cargoes, and consequently of revenue to the Government, is immense. If, then, there be any work embraced by that act which is not required in order to afford shelter and security to the shipping against the tempests which so often sweep over those great inland seas, but has, on the contrary, originated more in a spirit of speculation and local interest than in one of the character alluded to, the House of Representatives will regard my approval of the bill more as the result of misinformation than any design to abandon or modify the principles laid down in this message. Every system is liable to run into abuse, and none more so than that under consideration; and measures can not be too soon taken by Congress to guard against this evil.

JOHN TYLER.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

CIRCULAR[135]

[Footnote 135: Sent to all diplomatic and consular officers of the United States.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

_Washington, February 29, 1844_.

SIR: It has become my most painful duty to announce to you the sudden and violent death of the Hon. Abel P. Upshur, late Secretary of State of the United States. This afflicting dispensation occurred on the afternoon of yesterday, from the bursting of one of the great guns on board the Government steamship _Princeton_, near Alexandria, on her return from an excursion of pleasure down the river Potomac. By this most unfortunate accident several of our distinguished citizens, amongst whom were the Secretaries of State and of the Navy, were immediately killed, and many other persons mortally wounded or severely injured. It is the wish of the President that the diplomatic and consular agents of the United States, and all other officers connected with the State Department, either at home or abroad, shall wear the usual badge of mourning, in token of their grief and of respect for the memory of Mr. Upshur, during thirty days from the time of receiving this order.

In consequence of this event, the President has been pleased to charge me _ad interim_ with the direction of the Department of State, and I have accordingly this day entered upon the duties of this appointment.

I have the honor to be, with great respect, sir, your obedient servant,

JNO. NELSON.

GENERAL ORDERS.

WAR DEPARTMENT, _February 29, 1844_.

In the deepest grief the President of the United States has instructed the undersigned to announce to the Army that from the accidental explosion of a gun yesterday on board the United States steamship _Princeton_ the country and its Government lost at the same moment the Secretary of State, the Hon. A.P. Upshur, and the Secretary of the Navy, the Hon. T.W. Gilmer.

Called but a few days since to preside over the administration of the War Department, it is peculiarly painful to the undersigned that his first official communication to the Army should be the announcement of a calamity depriving the country of the public services of two of our most accomplished statesmen and popular and deeply esteemed fellow-citizens. Their virtues, talents, and patriotic services will ever be retained in the grateful recollection of their countrymen and perpetuated upon the pages of the history of our common country.

Deep as may be the gloom which spreads over the community, it has pleased the Almighty Disposer of Events to add another shade to it by blending in this melancholy catastrophe the deaths of an eminent citizen, Virgil Maxcy, esq., lately chargé d'affaires to Belgium; a gallant and meritorious officer of the Navy, a chief of a bureau, Captain B. Kennon, and a private citizen of New York of high and estimable character, besides others, citizens and sailors, either killed or wounded.

As appropriate honors to the memory of these distinguished Secretaries, half-hour guns will be fired at every military post furnished with the proper ordnance the day after the receipt of this order from sunrise to sunset. The national flag will be displayed at half-staff during the same time. And all officers of the Army will wear for three months the customary badge of mourning.

WM. WILKINS
_Secretary of War_.

GENERAL ORDER.

NAVY DEPARTMENT, _February 29, 1844_.

As a mark of respect to the memory of the late Hon. Thomas W. Gilmer, Secretary of the Navy, whose career at his entrance upon the duties of his office, would have been nobly maintained by that ability and vigor of which his whole previous life had been the guaranty, the flags of all vessels in commission, navy-yards, and stations are to be hoisted at half-mast on the day after the receipt of this order, minute guns to the number of seventeen are to be fired between sunrise and sunset, and crape is to be worn on the left arm and upon the sword for the space of three months.

By command of the President: