Chapter I (4)

The reason of the double delineation of the Restigouche on the map of Mitchell and several others of ancient date is obvious. A mistake was common to them all by which the Bay of Chaleurs was laid down too far to the north. The main branch, or Grande Fourche, of Restigouche (Katawamkedgwick) has been reached by parties setting out from the banks of the St. Lawrence at Metis, and was known to fall into the Bay of Chaleurs, while the united stream had also been visited by persons crossing the wagansis of Grand River and descending the Southwestern Branch. The map makers could not, in consequence of the error in latitude, make their plat meet, and therefore considered the part of the united streams reached in the two different directions as different bodies of water, and without authority sought an outlet for that which they laid down as the southernmost of the two in another bay of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. On many of the maps, however, the small stream which modern geographers improperly call Restigouche is readily distinguishable under the name of Chacodi.

_Note XII_.

In the argument of the British commissioners under Jay's treaty the following points were maintained, and, being sanctioned by the decision of the umpire, became the grounds of an award acceded to by both Governments:

First. That the limits of Nova Scotia had been altered from the southern bank of the St. Lawrence to the highlands described in the treaty of peace.

Second. That if the river Schoodiac were the true St. Croix the northwest angle of Nova Scotia could be formed by the western and northern boundaries (the meridian line and the highlands).

Third. That the territory of Acadie, or Nova Scotia, was, the same territory granted to Sir William Alexander.

Fourth. That the sea and Atlantic Ocean were used as convertible terms.

Fifth. That from the date of the treaty of Utrecht the boundary between Massachusetts and Nova Scotia was that of the patent to Sir William Alexander.

Sixth. That the Provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia belonged to and were in possession of His Britannic Majesty in 1783, and that he had an undoubted right to cede to the United States such part of them as he might think fit.

Seventh. That the due north line from the source of the St. Croix must of necessity cross the St. John.

It has since been maintained on the part of Great Britain:

First. That the limits of Nova Scotia never did extend to the St. Lawrence.

Second. That the northwest angle of Nova Scotia was unknown in 1783.

Third. That Acadie extended south to the forty-sixth degree of north latitude, and was not the same with Nova Scotia.

Fourth. That the sea and the Atlantic Ocean were different things.

Fifth. That the claims and rights of Massachusetts did not extend to the western bounds of the grant to Sir William Alexander.

Sixth. That this being the case the cession of territory not included within her limits is void.

Seventh. That it could never have been intended that the meridian line should cross the St. John.

_Note XIII_.

It has been pretended that the grant of the fief of Madawaska in 1683 can be urged as a bar to the claim of Massachusetts. That fief, indeed, was among the early grants of the French governors of Canada, but it is not included in the claim which the French themselves set up. It was therefore covered by the Massachusetts charter, because the grant had never been acted upon. Even up to the present day this fief can hardly be said to be settled or occupied except by the retainers of the garrison of Fort Ingall, and from all the evidence which could be found on the spot it appeared that no settlement had ever been made upon it until the establishment of a posthouse some time between the date of the treaties of 1783 and 1794. It therefore was not at the time the charter of Massachusetts was granted (1691) "actually possessed or inhabited by any other Christian prince or state."

An argument has also been attempted to be drawn from the limits given on Greenleaf's map to a purchase made from the State of Massachusetts by Watkins and Flint. This purchase is, however, by the patent extended to the highlands, and the surveyors who laid it out crossed the Walloostook in search of them. Here they met, at a short distance from that stream, with waters running to the north, which they conceived to be waters of the St. Lawrence, and they terminated their survey. The lines traced on Greenleaf's map are therefore incorrect, either as compared with the grant or the actual survey, and although from a want of knowledge of the country the surveyors stopped at waters running into Lake Temiscouata instead of the St. Lawrence, the very error shows the understanding they had of the true design of the patent, and this transaction, so far from being an available argument against the American claim, is an act of possession at an early date within the limits of the disputed territory.

WASHINGTON, _April 8, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with your resolution of the 31st March, 1842, I have the honor to submit the accompanying document and report[64] from the Commissioner of the General Land Office.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 64: Relating to surveys and sales of the public lands during 1841 and 1842, etc.]

WASHINGTON, _April 9, 1842_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

I transmit herewith to the House of Representatives a report from the Secretary of State, with a copy of the correspondence[65] requested by their resolution of the 7th instant.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 65: With Great Britain relative to an international copyright law.]

WASHINGTON, _April 11, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith transmit a memorial[66] which I have received from the Choctaw tribe of Indians and citizens of the State of Mississippi, with a request that I should communicate the same to Congress. This I do not feel myself at liberty to decline, inasmuch as I think that some action by Congress is called for by justice to the memorialists and in compliance with the plighted national faith.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 66: Relating to an alleged violation by the United States of the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek.]

WASHINGTON, _April 12, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In further compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 2d of February last, requesting information touching the demarcation of the boundary line between the United States and the Republic of Texas, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the accompanying documents.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _April 13, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 24th of July last, I communicate to that body a report from the Secretary of State, conveying copies of the correspondence[67] which contains the information called for by that resolution.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 67: Of the diplomatic agent and minister of the United States at the Court of Austria relative to the commercial interests of the United States.]

WASHINGTON, _April 13, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 29th July last, I communicate to that body a report from the Secretary of State, conveying copies of the correspondence[68] which contains the information called for by said resolution.

In communicating these papers to the Senate I call their particular attention to that portion of the report of the Secretary of State in which he suggests the propriety of not making public certain parts of the correspondence which accompanied it.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 68: Between the Department of State and Belgium relative to the rejection by that Government of the treaty ratified by the Senate February 9, 1833, and the causes of the delay in exchanging the ratifications of the treaty ratified by the Senate December 31, 1840.]

WASHINGTON, _April 18, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I have the honor to transmit herewith the report[69] of the Secretary of State, in compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 18th February, 1842.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 69: Transmitting names of agents employed by the State Department without express provision of law.]

WASHINGTON, _April 19, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith, in part compliance with a resolution of the Senate of February 18, a report from the Secretary of War, inclosing a list of all officers, agents, and commissioners employed under the War Department who are not such by express provision of law, with other information required by the resolution.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _April 19, 1842_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of War, containing a list of appointments to office made in that Department since the 4th day of April, 1841, in part compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 21st ultimo.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _April 20, 1842_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:

I submit to Congress a report from the Secretary of State, accompanied by documents relating to an application by the captain and owners of the Spanish ship _Sabina_,[70] which is recommended to their favorable consideration.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 70: For compensation for rescuing and supporting the captain, supercargo, and 17 officers and men of the American ship _Courier_, of New York, which foundered at sea, and landing them safely at the Cape of Good Hope.]

WASHINGTON, _April 28, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I submit to the Senate, for the constitutional action of that body, a treaty concluded on the 11th day of August last with the Minda Wankanton bands of the Dakota or Sioux Nation of Indians, with the papers necessary to an understanding of the subject.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _April 28, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I submit to the Senate, for the constitutional action of that body, a treaty concluded with the half-breeds of the Dakota or Sioux Nation on the 3ist day of July last, together with the papers referred to in the accompanying communication from the Secretary of War as necessary to a full view of the whole subject.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _April 30, 1842_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

In compliance with your resolution of the 29th instant, I have the honor to transmit the reports of Messrs. Kelley and Steuart, two of the commissioners originally appointed, along with Mr. Poindexter, to investigate the affairs of the custom-house of New York, together with all the correspondence and testimony accompanying the same, and also the report of Mr. Poindexter, to which is annexed two letters, subscribed by Mr. Poindexter and Mr. Bradley. The last-named gentleman was substituted in the place of Mr. Kelley, whose inclinations and duties called him to his residence in Ohio after the return of the commissioners to this city, about the last of August. One of the letters just mentioned was addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury and bears date the 12th of April instant, and the other to myself, dated the 20th of this month. From the former you will learn that a most interesting portion of the inquiry instituted by this Department (viz, that relating to light-houses, buoys, beacons, revenue cutters, and revenue boats) is proposed to be made the subject of a further report by Messrs. Bradley and Poindexter. You will also learn, through the accompanying letter from Mr. Steuart, the reasons which have delayed him in making a supplemental and additional report to that already made by himself and Mr. Kelley, embracing his views and opinions upon the developments made subsequent to the withdrawal of Mr. Kelley from the commission and the substitution of Mr. Bradley in his place. I also transmit two documents furnished by Mr. Steuart, and which were handed by him to the Secretary of the Treasury on the 7th instant, the one being "memoranda of proceedings," etc., marked No. 1, and the other "letters accompanying memoranda," etc., marked No. 2.

The commission was instituted for the purpose of ascertaining existing defects in the custom-house regulations, to trace to their true causes past errors, to detect abuses, and by wholesome reforms to guard in future not only against fraud and peculation, but error and mismanagement. For these purposes a selection was made of persons of acknowledged intelligence and industry, and upon this task they have been engaged for almost an entire year, and their labors remain yet to be completed. The character of those labors may be estimated by the extent of Messrs. Kelley and Steuart's report, embracing about 100 pages of closely written manuscript, the voluminous memoranda and correspondence of Mr. Steuart, the great mass of evidence accompanying Messrs. Kelley and Steuart's report, and the report of Mr. Poindexter, extending over 394 pages, comprised in the volume accompanying this, and additional reports still remaining to be made, as before stated.

I should be better pleased to have it in my power to communicate the entire mass of reports made and contemplated to be made at one and the same time, and still more should I have been gratified if time could have been allowed me, consistently with the apparent desire of the House of Representatives to be put into immediate possession of these papers, to have compared or even to have read with deliberation the views presented by the commissioners as to proposed reforms in the revenue laws, together with the mass of documentary evidence and information by which they have been explained and enforced and which do not admit of a satisfactory comparison until the whole circle of reports be completed. Charges of malfeasance against some of those now in office will devolve upon the Executive a rigid investigation into their extent and character, and will in due season claim my attention. The readiness, however, with which the House proposes to enter upon the grave and difficult subjects which these papers suggest having anticipated that consideration of them by the Executive which their importance demands, it only remains for me, in lieu of specific recommendations, which under other circumstances it would have been my duty to make, to urge upon Congress the importance and necessity of introducing the earliest reforms in existing laws and usages, so as to guard the country in future against frauds in the collection of the revenues and the Treasury against peculation, to relieve trade and commerce from oppressive regulations, and to guard law and morality against violation and abuse.

As from their great volume it has been necessary to transmit the original papers to the House, I have to suggest the propriety of the House taking order for their restoration to the Treasury Department at such time as may comport with its pleasure.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _May 2, 1842_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

I have this day received and now transmit to the House of Representatives the accompanying communication from Benjamin F. Butler, having relation to the reports of the commissioners appointed by me to examine into the affairs connected with the New York custom-house. As the whole subject is in possession of the House, I deem it also proper to communicate Mr. Butler's letter.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _May 10, 1842_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

The season for active hostilities in Florida having nearly terminated, my attention has necessarily been directed to the course of measures to be pursued hereafter in relation to the few Indians yet remaining in that Territory. Their number is believed not to exceed 240, of whom there are supposed to be about 80 warriors, or males capable of bearing arms. The further pursuit of these miserable beings by a large military force seems to be as injudicious as it is unavailing. The history of the last year's campaign in Florida has satisfactorily shown that notwithstanding the vigorous and incessant operations of our troops (which can not be exceeded), the Indian mode of warfare, their dispersed condition, and the very smallness of their number (which increases the difficulty of finding them in the abundant and almost inaccessible hiding places of the Territory) render any further attempt to secure them by force impracticable except by the employment of the most expensive means. The exhibition of force and the constant efforts to capture or destroy them of course places them beyond the reach of overtures to surrender. It is believed by the distinguished officer in command there that a different system should now be pursued to attain the entire removal of all the Indians in Florida, and he recommends that hostilities should cease unless the renewal of them be rendered necessary by new aggressions; that communications should be opened by means of the Indians with him to insure them a peaceful and voluntary surrender, and that the military operations should hereafter be directed to the protection of the inhabitants.

These views are strengthened and corroborated by the governor of the Territory, by many of its most intelligent citizens, and by numerous officers of the Army who have served and are still serving in that region. Mature reflection has satisfied me that these recommendations are sound and just; and I rejoice that consistently with duty to Florida I may indulge my desire to promote the great interests of humanity and extend the reign of peace and good will by terminating the unhappy warfare that has so long been carried on there, and at the same time gratify my anxiety to reduce the demands upon the Treasury by curtailing the extraordinary expenses which have attended the contest. I have therefore authorized the colonel in command there as soon as he shall deem it expedient to declare that hostilities against the Indians have ceased, and that they will not be renewed unless provoked and rendered indispensable by new outrages on their part, but that neither citizens nor troops are to be restrained from any necessary and proper acts of self-defense against any attempts to molest them. He is instructed to open communications with those yet remaining, and endeavor by all peaceable means to persuade them to consult their true interests by joining their brethren at the West; and directions have been given for establishing a cordon or line of protection for the inhabitants by the necessary number of troops.

But to render this system of protection effectual it is essential that settlements of our citizens should be made within the line so established, and that they should be armed, so as to be ready to repel any attack. In order to afford inducements to such settlements, I submit to the consideration of Congress the propriety of allowing a reasonable quantity of land to the head of each family that shall permanently occupy it, and of extending the existing provisions on that subject so as to permit the issue of rations for the subsistence of the settlers for one year; and as few of them will probably be provided with arms, it would be expedient to authorize the loan of muskets and the delivery of a proper quantity of cartridges or of powder and balls. By such means it is to be hoped that a hardy population will soon occupy the rich soil of the frontiers of Florida, who will be as capable as willing to defend themselves and their houses, and thus relieve the Government from further anxiety or expense for their protection.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _May 13, 1842_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

I transmit herewith a report[71] from the Postmaster-General, made in pursuance of the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 21st of March last, together with the accompanying documents.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 71: Transmitting lists of postmasters and others appointed by the President and Post-Office Department from April 4, 1841, to March 21, 1842.]

WASHINGTON, _May 16, 1842_.

_To the Senate_:

Having directed hostilities in Florida to cease, the time seems to have arrived for distinguishing with appropriate honors the brave army that have so long encountered the perils of savage warfare in a country presenting every imaginable difficulty and in seasons and under a climate fruitful of disease. The history of the hardships which our soldiers have endured, of the patience and perseverance which have enabled them to triumph over obstacles altogether unexampled, and of the gallantry which they have exhibited on every occasion which a subtle and skulking foe would allow them to improve is so familiar as not to require repetition at my hands. But justice to the officers and men now in Florida demands that their privations, sufferings, and dauntless exertions during a summer's campaign in such a climate, which for the first time was witnessed during the last year, should be specially commended. The foe has not been allowed opportunity either to plant or to cultivate or to reap. The season, which to him has usually been one of repose and preparation for renewed conflict, has been vigorously occupied by incessant and harassing pursuit, by penetrating his hiding places and laying waste his rude dwellings, and by driving him from swamp to swamp and from everglade to everglade. True, disease and death have been encountered at the same time and in the same pursuit, but they have been disregarded by a brave and gallant army, determined on fulfilling to the uttermost the duties assigned them, however inglorious they might esteem the particular service in which they were engaged.

To all who have been thus engaged the executive department, responding to the universal sentiment of the country, has already awarded the meed of approbation. There must, however, in all such cases be some who, availing themselves of the occasions which fortune afforded, have distinguished themselves for "gallant actions and meritorious conduct" beyond the usual high gallantry and great merit which an intelligent public opinion concedes to the whole Army. To express to these the sense which their Government cherishes of their public conduct and to hold up to their fellow-citizens the bright example of their courage, constancy, and patriotic devotion would seem to be but the performance of the very duty contemplated by that provision of our laws which authorizes the issuing of brevet commissions.

Fortunately for the country, a long peace, interrupted only by difficulties with Indians at particular points, has afforded few occasions for the exercise of this power, and it may be regarded as favorable to the encouragement of a proper military spirit throughout the Army that an opportunity is now given to evince the readiness of the Government to reward unusual merit with a peculiar and lasting distinction.

I therefore nominate to the Senate the persons whose names are contained in the accompanying list[72] for brevet commissions for services in Florida. That the number is large is evidence only of the value of the services rendered during a contest that has continued nearly as long as the War of the Revolution. The difficulty has been to reduce the number as much as possible without injustice to any, and to accomplish this great and mature consideration has been bestowed on the case of every officer who has served in Florida.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 72: Omitted.]

WASHINGTON, _May 24, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith to the Senate a treaty recently concluded with the Wyandott tribe of Indians, and request the advice and consent of the Senate to the ratification of the same as proposed to be modified by the War Department.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _June 1, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith transmit a report from the Acting Commissioner of the General Land Office and the documents accompanying the same (from No. 1 to No. 7), in relation to the conduct of N.P. Taylor, present register and former clerk in the land office at St. Louis, in compliance with your resolution of the 9th May.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _June 10, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I submit herewith a treaty concluded at Buffalo Creek on the 20th day of May last between the United States and the Seneca Nation of Indians, for your advice and consent to its ratification, together with a report on the subject from the War Department.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _June 13, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 2d of March last, requesting information touching proceedings under the convention of the 11th of April, 1839, between the United States and the Mexican Republic, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, with the accompanying documents.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _June 15, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 29th of March last, calling for information touching the relations between the United States and the Mexican Republic, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, with the accompanying documents.[73]

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 73: Correspondence respecting certain citizens of the United States captured with the Texan expedition to Santa Fe, and held in confinement in Mexico.]

WASHINGTON, _June 17, 1842_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith transmit a report from the Secretary of the Treasury, which, accompanied by copies of certain letters of Mr. Ewing, late Secretary of the Treasury, and a statement[74] from the Treasury Department, completes the answer, a part of which has heretofore been furnished, to your resolution of the 7th of February last, and complies also with your resolution of the 3d instant.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 74: Of expenses of the commission to investigate the New York custom-house, etc.]

WASHINGTON, _June 20, 1842_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

A resolution of the House of Representatives of the 13th instant has been communicated to me, requesting, "so far as may be compatible with the public interest, a copy of the quintuple treaty between the five powers of Europe for the suppression of the African slave trade, and also copies of any remonstrance or protest addressed by Lewis Cass, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States at the Court of France, to that Government, against the ratification by France of the said treaty, and of all correspondence between the Governments of the United States and of France, and of all communications from the said Lewis Cass to his own Government and from this Government to him relating thereto."

In answer to this request I have to say that the treaty mentioned therein has not been officially communicated to the Government of the United States, and no authentic copy of it, therefore, can be furnished. In regard to the other papers requested, although it is my hope and expectation that it will be proper and convenient at an early day to lay them before Congress, together with others connected with the same subjects, yet in my opinion a communication of them to the House of Representatives at this time would not be compatible with the public interest.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _June 22, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 15th of April last, I communicate to the Senate a report from the Secretary of State, accompanying copies of the correspondence[75] called for by said resolution.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 75: Relating to the conduct and character of William B. Hodgson (nominated to be consul at Tunis) while dragoman at Constantinople.]

WASHINGTON, _June 24, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith to the Senate the translation of a letter[76] addressed by the minister of France at Washington to the Secretary of State of the United States and a copy of the answer given thereto by my direction, and invite to the subject of the minister's letter all the consideration due to its importance and to a proposition originating in a desire to promote mutual convenience and emanating from a Government with which it is both our interest and our desire to maintain the most amicable relations.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 76: Relating to the establishment of a line of steamers between Havre and New York.]

[The same message was sent to the House of Representatives.]

WASHINGTON, _June 24, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 16th of February last, I herewith transmit a letter[77] from the Secretary of State and the papers in that Department called for by the resolution aforesaid.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 77: Transmitting names and compensation of employees and witnesses in connection with the commission of inquiry relative to the public buildings in Washington, D.C.]

WASHINGTON, _June 25, 1842_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I have this day approved and signed an act, which originated in the House of Representatives, entitled "An act for an apportionment of Representatives among the several States according to the Sixth Census," and have caused the same to be deposited in the office of the Secretary of State, accompanied by an exposition of my reasons for giving to it my sanction.

JOHN TYLER.

[Transmitted to the House of Representatives by the Secretary of State in compliance with a resolution of that body.]

WASHINGTON, _June 25,1842_.

A BILL entitled "An act for an apportionment of Representatives among the several States according to the Sixth Census," approved June 25, 1842.

In approving this bill I feel it due to myself to say, as well that my motives for signing it may be rightly understood as that my opinions may not be liable to be misconstrued or quoted hereafter erroneously as a precedent, that I have not proceeded so much upon a _clear and decided opinion of my own_ respecting the constitutionality or policy of the entire act as from respect to the declared will of the two Houses of Congress.

In yielding _my doubts_ to the matured opinion of Congress I have followed the advice of the first Secretary of State to the first President of the United States and the example set by that illustrious citizen upon a memorable occasion.

When I was a member of either House of Congress I acted under the conviction that _to doubt_ as to the constitutionality of a law was sufficient to induce me to give my vote against it; but I have not been able to bring myself to believe that _a doubtful opinion_ of the Chief Magistrate ought to outweigh the solemnly pronounced opinion of the representatives of the people and of the States.

One of the prominent features of the bill is that which purports to be mandatory on the States to form districts for the choice of Representatives to Congress, in single districts. That Congress itself has power by law to alter State regulations respecting the manner of holding elections for Representatives is clear, but its power to command the States to make new regulations or alter their existing regulations is the question upon which I have felt deep and strong doubts. I have yielded those doubts, however, to the opinion of the Legislature, giving effect to their enactment as far as depends on my approbation, and leaving questions which may arise hereafter, if unhappily such should arise, to be settled by full consideration of the several provisions of the Constitution and the laws and the authority of each House to judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members.

Similar considerations have operated with me in regard to the representation of fractions above a moiety of the representative number, and where such moiety exceeds 30,000--a question on which a diversity of opinion has existed from the foundation of the Government. The provision recommends itself from its nearer approximation to equality than would be found in the application of a common and simple divisor to the entire population of each State, and corrects in a great degree those inequalities which are destined at the recurrence of each succeeding census so greatly to augment.

In approving the bill I flatter myself that a disposition will be perceived on my part to concede to the opinions of Congress in a matter which may conduce to the good of the country and the stability of its institutions, upon which my own opinion is not clear and decided. But it seemed to me due to the respectability of opinion against the constitutionality of the bill, as well as to the real difficulties of the subject, which no one feels more sensibly than I do, that the reasons which have determined me should be left on record.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _July 1, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In pursuance of the suggestions contained in the accompanying letter from the Secretary of the Navy and of my own convictions of their propriety, I transmit to the Senate the report made by Lieutenant Wilkes, commander of the exploring expedition, relative to the Oregon Territory. Having due regard to the negotiations now pending between this Government and the Government of Great Britain through its special envoy, I have thought it proper to communicate the report confidentially to the Senate.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _July 2, 1842_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:

I submit to Congress the printed copy of certain resolutions of the legislature of the State of Louisiana, accompanied by a letter from the Senators and Representatives from that State, and also a letter from the Solicitor of the Treasury and Commissioner of the General Land Office, requesting and recommending that a suit in ejectment may be authorized and directed in order to test the validity of a grant made on the 20th of June, 1797, by the Baron de Carondelet, Governor-General of Louisiana, to the Marquis de Maison Rouge.

The magnitude of this claim renders it highly desirable that a speedy termination should be put to all contest concerning it, and I therefore recommend that Congress shall authorize such proceedings as may be best calculated to bring it to a close.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _July 9, 1842_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 21st ultimo, requesting information relative to proceedings of this Government in the case of George Johnson, a citizen of the United States aggrieved by acts of authorities of the Republic of Uruguay, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State with the accompanying Papers.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _July 14, 1842_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 12th instant, requesting copies of papers upon the subject of the relations between the United States and the Mexican Republic, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the documents by which it was accompanied.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _July 14, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 11th instant, calling for the recent correspondence between the Republic of Mexico and this Government in relation to Texas, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, with the accompanying documents.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _July 20, 1842_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

In further compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 29th of April last, I transmit herewith a supplemental and additional report of William M. Steuart, one of the commissioners appointed to investigate the affairs of the New York custom-house, which has recently been received, and which, like the reports of the commissioners heretofore communicated to the House, I have not had an opportunity to examine. For the reason stated in my message to the House of the 30th of April last, I shall abstain, as I have done hitherto, from recommending any specific measures which might be suggested by an examination of the various reports on the subject.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _July 22, 1842_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 13th instant, upon the subject of the relations between the United States and the Republic of Texas, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State. My last communication to Congress relating to that Republic was my message of the 30th of March last, suggesting the expediency of legislative provisions for improving the trade and facilitating the intercourse by post between the United States and Texas. The report of the Secretary of State is accompanied by a copy of all the correspondence between the two Governments since that period which it would be compatible with the public interest to communicate to the House of Representatives at this time.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _August 8, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In the communication made to the Senate on the 13th of June, in answer to its resolution of the 2d of March last, there appears to have been, among other papers, sundry letters addressed to the Department of State by certain claimants or their agents containing reflections upon the character of the umpire appointed by His Prussian Majesty pursuant to the convention between the United States and the Mexican Republic of the 11th of April, 1839. As the call was for all communications which had been addressed to the Department of State by any of the claimants under that convention relative to the proceedings and progress of the mixed commission, the copies were prepared and submitted without attracting the attention either of the head of the Department or myself. If those letters had been noticed, their transmission to the Senate, if transmitted at all, would have been accompanied by a disclaimer on the part of the Executive of any intention to approve such charges. The Executive has no complaint to make against the conduct or decisions of the highly respectable person appointed by his sovereign umpire between the American and Mexican commissioners.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _August 10, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with your resolution of the 18th July, I herewith transmit a letter from the Acting Secretary of the Treasury and a report from the Commissioner of Public Buildings, together with the accompanying documents.[78]

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 78: Relating to the macadamizing of Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington D.C.]

WASHINGTON, _August 11, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I have the satisfaction to communicate to the Senate the results of the negotiations recently had in this city with the British minister, special and extraordinary.

These results comprise--

First. A treaty to settle and define the boundaries between the territories of the United States and the possessions of Her Britannic Majesty in North America, for the suppression of the African slave trade, and the surrender of criminals fugitive from justice in certain cases.

Second. A correspondence on the subject of the interference of the colonial authorities of the British West Indies with American merchant vessels driven by stress of weather or carried by violence into the ports of those colonies.

Third. A correspondence upon the subject of the attack and destruction of the steamboat _Caroline_.

Fourth. A correspondence on the subject of impressment.

If this treaty shall receive the approbation of the Senate, it will terminate a difference respecting boundary which has long subsisted between the two Governments, has been the subject of several ineffectual attempts at settlement, and has sometimes led to great irritation, not without danger of disturbing the existing peace. Both the United States and the States more immediately concerned have entertained no doubt of the validity of the American title to all the territory which has been in dispute, but that title was controverted and the Government of the United States had agreed to make the dispute a subject of arbitration. One arbitration had been actually had, but had failed to settle the controversy, and it was found at the commencement of last year that a correspondence had been in progress between the two Governments for a joint commission, with an ultimate reference to an umpire or arbitrator with authority to make a final decision. That correspondence, however, had been retarded by various occurrences, and had come to no definite result when the special mission of Lord Ashburton was announced. This movement on the part of England afforded in the judgment of the Executive a favorable opportunity for making an attempt to settle this long-existing controversy by some agreement or treaty without further reference to arbitration.

It seemed entirely proper that if this purpose were entertained consultation should be had with the authorities of the States of Maine and Massachusetts. Letters, therefore, of which copies are herewith communicated, were addressed to the governors of those States, suggesting that commissioners should be appointed by each of them, respectively, to repair to this city and confer with the authorities of this Government on a line by agreement or compromise, with its equivalents and compensations. This suggestion was met by both States in a spirit of candor and patriotism and promptly complied with. Four commissioners on the part of Maine and three on the part of Massachusetts, all persons of distinction and high character, were duly appointed and commissioned and lost no time in presenting themselves at the seat of the Government of the United States. These commissioners have been in correspondence with this Government during the period of the discussions; have enjoyed its confidence and freest communications; have aided the general object with their counsel and advice, and in the end have unanimously signified their assent to the line proposed in the treaty.

Ordinarily it would be no easy task to reconcile and bring together such a variety of interests in a matter in itself difficult and perplexed, but the efforts of the Government in attempting to accomplish this desirable object have been seconded and sustained by a spirit of accommodation and conciliation on the part of the States concerned, to which much of the success of these efforts is to be ascribed.

Connected with the settlement of the line of the northeastern boundary, so far as it respects the States of Maine and Massachusetts, is the continuation of that line along the highlands to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River. Which of the sources of that stream is entitled to this character has been matter of controversy and of some interest to the State of New Hampshire. The King of the Netherlands decided the main branch to be the northwesternmost head of the Connecticut. This did not satisfy the claim of New Hampshire. The line agreed to in the present treaty follows the highlands to the head of Halls Stream and thence down that river, embracing the whole claim of New Hampshire and establishing her title to 100,000 acres of territory more than she would have had by the decision of the King of the Netherlands.

By the treaty of 1783 the line is to proceed down the Connecticut River to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude, and thence west by that parallel till it strikes the St. Lawrence. Recent examinations having ascertained that the line heretofore received as the true line of latitude between those points was erroneous, and that the correction of this error would not only leave on the British side a considerable tract of territory heretofore supposed to belong to the States of Vermont and New York, but also Rouses Point, the site of a military work of the United States, it has been regarded as an object of importance not only to establish the rights and jurisdiction of those States up to the line to which they have been considered to extend, but also to comprehend Rouses Point within the territory of the United States. The relinquishment by the British Government of all the territory south of the line heretofore considered to be the true line has been obtained, and the consideration for this relinquishment is to inure by the provisions of the treaty to the States of Maine and Massachusetts.

The line of boundary, then, from the source of the St. Croix to the St. Lawrence, so far as Maine and Massachusetts are concerned, is fixed by their own consent and for considerations satisfactory to them, the chief of these considerations being the privilege of transporting the lumber and agricultural products grown and raised in Maine on the waters of the St. Johns and its tributaries down that river to the ocean free from imposition or disability. The importance of this privilege, perpetual in its terms, to a country covered at present by pine forests of great value, and much of it capable hereafter of agricultural improvement, is not a matter upon which the opinion of intelligent men is likely to be divided.

So far as New Hampshire is concerned, the treaty secures all that she requires, and New York and Vermont are quieted to the extent of their claim and occupation. The difference which would be made in the northern boundary of these two States by correcting the parallel of latitude may be seen on Tanner's maps (1836), new atlas, maps Nos. 6 and 9.

From the intersection of the forty-fifth degree of north latitude with the St. Lawrence and along that river and the lakes to the water communication between Lake Huron and Lake Superior the line was definitively agreed on by the commissioners of the two Governments under the sixth article of the treaty of Ghent; but between this last-mentioned point and the Lake of the Woods the commissioners acting under the seventh article of that treaty found several matters of disagreement, and therefore made no joint report to their respective Governments. The first of these was Sugar Island, or St. Georges Island, lying in St. Marys River, or the water communication between Lakes Huron and Superior. By the present treaty this island is embraced in the territories of the United States. Both from soil and position it is regarded as of much value.

Another matter of difference was the manner of extending the line from the point at which the commissioners arrived, north of Isle Royale, in Lake Superior, to the Lake of the Woods. The British commissioner insisted on proceeding to Fond du Lac, at the southwest angle of the lake, and thence by the river St. Louis to the Rainy Lake. The American commissioner supposed the true course to be to proceed by way of the Dog River. Attempts were made to compromise this difference, but without success. The details of these proceedings are found at length in the printed separate reports of the commissioners.

From the imperfect knowledge of this remote country at the date of the treaty of peace, some of the descriptions in that treaty do not harmonize with its natural features as now ascertained. "Long Lake" is nowhere to be found under that name. There is reason for supposing, however, that the sheet of water intended by that name is the estuary at the mouth of Pigeon River. The present treaty therefore adopts that estuary and river, and afterwards pursues the usual route across the height of land by the various portages and small lakes till the line reaches Rainy Lake, from which the commissioners agreed on the extension of it to its termination in the northwest angle of the Lake of the Woods. The region of country on and near the shore of the lake between Pigeon River on the north and Fond du Lac and the river St. Louis on the south and west, considered valuable as a mineral region, is thus included within the United States. It embraces a territory of 4,000,000 acres northward of the claim set up by the British commissioner under the treaty of Ghent. From the height of land at the head of Pigeon River westerly to the Rainy Lake the country is understood to be of little value, being described by surveyors and marked on the map as a region of rock and water.

From the northwest angle of the Lake of the Woods, which is found to be in latitude 45° 23' 55" north, existing treaties require the line to be run due south to its intersection with the forty-fifth parallel, and thence along that parallel to the Rocky Mountains.

After sundry informal communications with the British minister upon the subject of the claims of the two countries to territory west of the Rocky Mountains, so little probability was found to exist of coming to any agreement on that subject at present that it was not thought expedient to make it one of the subjects of formal negotiation to be entered upon between this Government and the British minister as part of his duties under his special mission.

By the treaty of 1783 the line of division along the rivers and lakes from the place where the forty-fifth parallel of north latitude strikes the St. Lawrence to the outlet of Lake Superior is invariably to be drawn through the middle of such waters, and not through the middle of their main channels. Such a line, if extended according to the literal terms of the treaty, would, it is obvious, occasionally intersect islands. The manner in which the commissioners of the two Governments dealt with this difficult subject may be seen in their reports. But where the line thus following the middle of the river or water course did not meet with islands, yet it was liable sometimes to leave the only practicable navigable channel altogether on one side. The treaty made no provision for the common use of the waters by the citizens and subjects of both countries.

It has happened, therefore, in a few instances that the use of the river in particular places would be greatly diminished to one party or the other if in fact there was not a choice in the use of channels and passages. Thus at the Long Sault, in the St. Lawrence--a dangerous passage, practicable only for boats--the only safe run is between the Long Sault Islands and Barnharts Island (all which belong to the United States) on one side and the American shore on the other. On the other hand, by far the best passage for vessels of any depth of water from Lake Erie into the Detroit River is between Bois Blanc, a British island, and the Canadian shore. So again, there are several channels or passages, of different degrees of facility and usefulness, between the several islands in the river St. Clair at or near its entry into the lake of that name. In these three cases the treaty provides that all the several passages and channels shall be free and open to the use of the citizens and subjects of both parties.

The treaty obligations subsisting between the two countries for the suppression of the African slave trade and the complaints made to this Government within the last three or four years, many of them but too well founded, of the visitation, seizure, and detention of American vessels on that coast by British cruisers could not but form a delicate and highly important part of the negotiations which have now been held.

The early and prominent part which the Government of the United States has taken for the abolition of this unlawful and inhuman traffic is well known. By the tenth article of the treaty of Ghent it is declared that the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and justice, and that both His Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition; and it is thereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object. The Government of the United States has by law declared the African slave trade piracy, and at its suggestion other nations have made similar enactments. It has not been wanting in honest and zealous efforts, made in conformity with the wishes of the whole country, to accomplish the entire abolition of the traffic in slaves upon the African coast, but these efforts and those of other countries directed to the same end have proved to a considerable degree unsuccessful. Treaties are known to have been entered into some years ago between England and France by which the former power, which usually maintains a large naval force on the African station, was authorized to seize and bring in for adjudication vessels found engaged in the slave trade under the French flag.

It is known that in December last a treaty was signed in London by the representatives of England, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria having for its professed object a strong and united effort of the five powers to put an end to the traffic. This treaty was not officially communicated to the Government of the United States, but its provisions and stipulations are supposed to be accurately known to the public. It is understood to be not yet ratified on the part of France.

No application or request has been made to this Government to become party to this treaty, but the course it might take in regard to it has excited no small degree of attention and discussion in Europe, as the principle upon which it is founded and the stipulations which it contains have caused warm animadversions and great political excitement.