 |
The occurrence during the last few months of marine disasters of the most tragic nature, involving great loss of human life, has produced intense emotions of sympathy and sorrow throughout the country. It may well be doubted whether all these calamitous events are wholly attributable to the necessary and inevitable dangers of the sea. The merchants, mariners, and shipbuilders of the United States are, it is true, unsurpassed in far-reaching enterprise, skill, intelligence, and courage by any others in the world. But with the increasing amount of our commercial tonnage in the aggregate and the larger size and improved equipment of the ships now constructed a deficiency in the supply of reliable seamen begins to be very seriously felt. The inconvenience may perhaps be met in part by due regulation for the introduction into our merchant ships of indented apprentices, which, while it would afford useful and eligible occupation to numerous young men, would have a tendency to raise the character of seamen as a class. And it is deserving of serious reflection whether it may not be desirable to revise the existing laws for the maintenance of discipline at sea, upon which the security of life and property on the ocean must to so great an extent depend. Although much attention has already been given by Congress to the proper construction and arrangement of steam vessels and all passenger ships, still it is believed that the resources of science and mechanical skill in this direction have not been exhausted. No good reason exists for the marked distinction which appears upon our statutes between the laws for protecting life and property at sea and those for protecting them on land. In most of the States severe penalties are provided to punish conductors of trains, engineers, and others employed in the transportation of persons by railway or by steamboats on rivers. Why should not the same principle be applied to acts of insubordination, cowardice, or other misconduct on the part of masters and mariners producing injury or death to passengers on the high seas, beyond the jurisdiction of any of the States, and where such delinquencies can be reached only by the power of Congress? The whole subject is earnestly commended to your consideration.
The report of the Postmaster-General, to which you are referred for many interesting details in relation to this important and rapidly extending branch of the public service, shows that the expenditure of the year ending June 30, 1854, including $133,483 of balance due to foreign offices, amounted to $8,710,907. The gross receipts during the same period amounted to $6,955,586, exhibiting an expenditure over income of $1,755,321 and a diminution of deficiency as compared with the last year of $361,756. The increase of the revenue of the Department for the year ending June 30, 1854, over the preceding year was $970,399, No proportionate increase, however, can be anticipated for the current year, in consequence of the act of Congress of June 23, 1854, providing for increased compensation to all postmasters. From these statements it is apparent that the Post-Office Department, instead of defraying its expenses according to the design at the time of its creation, is now, and under existing laws must continue to be, to no small extent a charge upon the general Treasury. The cost of mail transportation during the year ending June 30, 1854, exceeds the cost of the preceding year by $495,074. I again call your attention to the subject of mail transportation by ocean steamers, and commend the suggestions of the Postmaster-General to your early attention.
During the last fiscal year 11,070,935 acres of the public lands have been surveyed and 8,190,017 acres brought into market. The number of acres sold is 7,035,735 and the amount received therefor $9,285,533. The aggregate amount of lands sold, located under military scrip and land warrants, selected as swamp lands by States, and by locating under grants for roads is upward of 23,000,000 acres. The increase of lands sold over the previous year is about 6,000,000 acres, and the sales during the first two quarters of the current year present the extraordinary result of five and a half millions sold, exceeding by nearly 4,000,000 acres the sales of the corresponding quarters of the last year.
The commendable policy of the Government in relation to setting apart public domain for those who have served their country in time of war is illustrated by the fact that since 1790 no less than 30,000,000 acres have been applied to this object.
The suggestions which I submitted in my annual message of last year in reference to grants of land in aid of the construction of railways were less full and explicit than the magnitude of the subject and subsequent developments would seem to render proper and desirable. Of the soundness of the principle then asserted with regard to the limitation of the power of Congress I entertain no doubt, but in its application it is not enough that the value of lands in a particular locality may be enhanced; that, in fact, a larger amount of money may probably be received in a given time for alternate sections than could have been realized for all the sections without the impulse and influence of the proposed improvements. A prudent proprietor looks beyond limited sections of his domain, beyond present results to the ultimate effect which a particular line of policy is likely to produce upon all his possessions and interests. The Government, which is trustee in this matter for the people of the States, is bound to take the same wise and comprehensive view. Prior to and during the last session of Congress upward of 30,000,000 acres of land were withdrawn from public sale with a view to applications for grants of this character pending before Congress. A careful review of the whole subject led me to direct that all such orders be abrogated and the lands restored to market, and instructions were immediately given to that effect. The applications at the last session contemplated the construction of more than 5,000 miles of road and grants to the amount of nearly 20,000,000 acres of the public domain. Even admitting the right on the part of Congress to be unquestionable, is it quite clear that the proposed grants would be productive of good, and not evil? The different projects are confined for the present to eleven States of this Union and one Territory. The reasons assigned for the grants show that it is proposed to put the works speedily in process of construction. When we reflect that since the commencement of the construction of railways in the United States, stimulated, as they have been, by the large dividends realized from the earlier works over the great thoroughfares and between the most important points of commerce and population, encouraged by State legislation, and pressed forward by the amazing energy of private enterprise, only 17,000 miles have been completed in all the States in a quarter of a century; when we see the crippled condition of many works commenced and prosecuted upon what were deemed to be sound principles and safe calculations; when we contemplate the enormous absorption of capital withdrawn from the ordinary channels of business, the extravagant rates of interest at this moment paid to continue operations, the bankruptcies, not merely in money but in character, and the inevitable effect upon finances generally, can it be doubted that the tendency is to run to excess in this matter? Is it wise to augment this excess by encouraging hopes of sudden wealth expected to flow from magnificent schemes dependent upon the action of Congress? Does the spirit which has produced such results need to be stimulated or checked? Is it not the better rule to leave all these works to private enterprise, regulated and, when expedient, aided by the cooperation of States? If constructed by private capital the stimulant and the check go together and furnish a salutary restraint against speculative schemes and extravagance. But it is manifest that with the most effective guards there is danger of going too fast and too far.
We may well pause before a proposition contemplating a simultaneous movement for the construction of railroads which in extent will equal, exclusive of the great Pacific road and all its branches, nearly one-third of the entire length of such works now completed in the United States, and which can not cost with equipments less than $150,000,000. The dangers likely to result from combinations of interests of this character can hardly be overestimated. But independently of these considerations, where is the accurate knowledge, the comprehensive intelligence, which shall discriminate between the relative claims of these twenty-eight proposed roads in eleven States and one Territory? Where will you begin and where end? If to enable these companies to execute their proposed works it is necessary that the aid of the General Government be primarily given, the policy will present a problem so comprehensive in its bearings and so important to our political and social well-being as to claim in anticipation the severest analysis. Entertaining these views, I recur with satisfaction to the experience and action of the last session of Congress as furnishing assurance that the subject will not fail to elicit a careful reexamination and rigid scrutiny.
It was my intention to present on this occasion some suggestions regarding internal improvements by the General Government, which want of time at the close of the last session prevented my submitting on the return to the House of Representatives with objections of the bill entitled "An act making appropriations for the repair, preservation, and completion of certain public works heretofore commenced under the authority of law;" but the space in this communication already occupied with other matter of immediate public exigency constrains me to reserve that subject for a special message, which will be transmitted to the two Houses of Congress at an early day.
The judicial establishment of the United States requires modification, and certain reforms in the manner of conducting the legal business of the Government are also much needed; but as I have addressed you upon both of these subjects at length before, I have only to call your attention to the suggestions then made.
My former recommendations in relation to suitable provision for various objects of deep interest to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia are renewed. Many of these objects partake largely of a national character, and are important independently of their relation to the prosperity of the only considerable organized community in the Union entirely unrepresented in Congress.
I have thus presented suggestions on such subjects as appear to me to be of particular interest or importance, and therefore most worthy of consideration during the short remaining period allotted to the labors of the present Congress.
Our forefathers of the thirteen united colonies, in acquiring their independence and in founding this Republic of the United States of America, have devolved upon us, their descendants, the greatest and the most noble trust ever committed to the hands of man, imposing upon all, and especially such as the public will may have invested for the time being with political functions, the most sacred obligations. We have to maintain inviolate the great doctrine of the inherent right of popular self-government; to reconcile the largest liberty of the individual citizen with complete security of the public order; to render cheerful obedience to the laws of the land, to unite in enforcing their execution, and to frown indignantly on all combinations to resist them; to harmonize a sincere and ardent devotion to the institutions of religious faith with the most universal religious toleration; to preserve the rights of all by causing each to respect those of the other; to carry forward every social improvement to the uttermost limit of human perfectibility, by the free action of mind upon mind, not by the obtrusive intervention of misapplied force; to uphold the integrity and guard the limitations of our organic law; to preserve sacred from all touch of usurpation, as the very palladium of our political salvation, the reserved rights and powers of the several States and of the people; to cherish with loyal fealty and devoted affection this Union, as the only sure foundation on which the hopes of civil liberty rest; to administer government with vigilant integrity and rigid economy; to cultivate peace and friendship with foreign nations, and to demand and exact equal justice from all, but to do wrong to none; to eschew intermeddling with the national policy and the domestic repose of other governments, and to repel it from our own; never to shrink from war when the rights and the honor of the country call us to arms, but to cultivate in preference the arts of peace, seek enlargement of the rights of neutrality, and elevate and liberalize the intercourse of nations; and by such just and honorable means, and such only, whilst exalting the condition of the Republic, to assure to it the legitimate influence and the benign authority of a great example amongst all the powers of Christendom.
Under the solemnity of these convictions the blessing of Almighty God is earnestly invoked to attend upon your deliberations and upon all the counsels and acts of the Government, to the end that, with common zeal and common efforts, we may, in humble submission to the divine will, cooperate for the promotion of the supreme good of these United States.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
SPECIAL MESSAGES.
WASHINGTON, December 5, 1854.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to approval, a compact between the United States and the royal Government of Lew Chew, entered into at Napa on the 11th day of July last, for securing certain privileges to vessels of the United States resorting to the Lew Chew Islands.
A copy of the instructions of the Secretary of State upon the subject is also herewith transmitted.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, December 5, 1894.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to ratification, a convention for regulating the right of inheriting and acquiring property, concluded in this city on the 21st day of August last between the United States and His Highness the Duke of Brunswick and Luneburg.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, December 11, 1854.
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
An act for the relief of the legal representatives of Samuel Prioleau, deceased, which provided for the payment of the sum of $6,928.60 to the legal representatives of said Prioleau by the proper accounting officer of the Treasury, was approved by me July 27, 1854. It having been ascertained that the identical claim provided for in this act was liquidated and paid under the provisions of the general act of August 4, 1790, and of the special act of January 24, 1795, the First Comptroller of the Treasury declined to give effect to the law first above referred to without communicating the facts for my consideration. This refusal I regard as fully justified by the facts upon which it was predicated.
In view of the destruction of valuable papers by fire in the building occupied by the Treasury Department in 1814 and again in 1833, it is not surprising that cases like this should, more than seventy years after the transaction with which they were connected, be involved in much doubt. The report of the Comptroller, however, shows conclusively by record evidence still preserved in the Department and elsewhere that the sum of $6,122.44, with $3,918.36 interest thereon from the date of the destruction of the property, making the sum of $10,040.80, was allowed to Samuel Prioleau under the act for his relief passed in 1795.
That amount was reported by the Auditor to the Comptroller on the 4th day of February, 1795, to be funded as follows, to wit.
Two thirds of $6,122.44 called 6 per cent stock $4,081.63 One third called deferred stock 2,040.81 Interest on the principal, called 3 per cent stock 3,918.36
Total 10,040.80
On the books of the loan office of South Carolina, under date of April 27, 1795 is an entry showing that there was issued of the funded 6 per cent stock to
Samuel Prioleau 4,081.63 Of the deferred stock 2,040.81 Of the 3 per cent stock 3,918.36
Total 10,040.80
On the ledger of said loan office an account was opened with Samuel Prioleau, in which he was credited with the three items of stock and deputed by the transfer of each certificate to certain persons named, under dates of May 20, 1795, August 24, 1795, and April 19, 1796.
These records show that the account of Samuel Prioleau, required to be settled by the act of January 28, 1795, was settled; that the value of the property destroyed was allowed; that the amount so found due was funded by said Prioleau and entered by his order on the loan-office books of South Carolina, and soon thereafter by him sold and transferred. That the entire funded debt of the United States was long since paid is matter of history.
It is apparent that the claim has been prosecuted under a misapprehension on the part of the present claimants.
I present the evidence in the case collected by the First Comptroller and embodied in his report for your consideration, together with a copy of a letter just received by that officer from the executor of P.G. Prioleau, and respectfully recommend the repeal of the act of July 27, 1854.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, December 11, 1854.
To the House of Representatives:
I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying documents,[33] in compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 27th of July last.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
[Footnote 33: Correspondence of the American consul-general at Cairo relative to the expulsion of the Greeks from Egypt.]
WASHINGTON, December 11, 1854.
To the Senate:
I herewith transmit a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury, requesting authority to invest the sum of $6,561.80, received from the sales of lands in the Chickasaw cession, in stocks for the benefit of the Chickasaw national fund, as required by the eleventh article of the treaty with the Chickasaws of the 20th October, 1832, and the act of Congress of 11th September, 1841.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, December 12, 1854.
To the Senate of the United States:
Herewith I transmit a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying papers,[34] in answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 3d of August last.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
[Footnote 34: Correspondence relative to difficulties between Rev. Jonas King and the Government of Greece.]
WASHINGTON, December 16, 1854.
To the House of Representatives:
I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying papers,[35] in answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 27th of July last.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
[Footnote 35: Relating to the case of Walter M. Gibson, held in duress by the Dutch authorities at Batavia, island of Java, on a charge of having attempted to excite the native chiefs of Sumatra to throw off their allegiance to the Dutch Government.]
WASHINGTON, December 19, 1854.
To the House of Representatives:
I transmit a report from the Secretary of War, with accompanying papers, in answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 2d of August last, requesting such information as may be in the possession of the War Department touching the cause of any difficulties which may have arisen between the Creek and Seminole Indians since their removal west of the Mississippi and other matters concerning the tribes.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, December 20, 1854.
To the Senate of the United States:
I herewith transmit to the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon, a treaty made at the Neosho Agency on the 12th August, 1854, by Andrew J. Dorn, commissioner on the part of the United States, and the chiefs and warriors of the Quapaw tribe of Indians.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, December 20, 1854.
To the Senate of the United States:
I herewith transmit to the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon, a treaty made by Andrew J. Dorn, commissioner on the part of the United States, on the 23d of August, 1854, and the chiefs and warriors of the Senecas of Sandusky and the Senecas and Shawnees of Lewistown, designated by the treaty of 1832 as the United Nation of Seneca and Shawnee Indians.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, December 20, 1854.
To the Senate of the United States:
I herewith transmit to the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon, a treaty made at La Pointe, Wis., on the 30th of September, 1854, by Henry C. Gilbert and David B. Harriman, commissioners on the part of the United States, and the chiefs and headmen of the Chippewas of Lake Superior and the Mississippi.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, December 26, 1854.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 5th instant, requesting me, if not incompatible with the public interests, to communicate to that body "copies of all instructions and correspondence between the different Departments of the Government and Major-General Wool, commanding the Pacific division of the Army, in regard to his operations on that coast," I transmit the accompanying documents.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
[For message of December 30, 1854, giving an exposition of the reasons of the President for vetoing "An act making appropriations for the repair, preservation, and completion of certain public works heretofore commenced under the authority of law," see pp. 257-271.]
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 1, 1855.
To the House of Representatives:
In response to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 11th ultimo, requesting the President "to communicate to this House any proposition which may have been made to the Government by the city authorities of Memphis relative to the navy-yard property recently ceded to that city, together with his views and those of the Navy Department as to the propriety of accepting the proposed re-cession and of reestablishing a naval depot and yard of construction at Memphis," I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of the Navy, and have only to add my concurrence in the views by him presented.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, January 9, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith to the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon, an article of agreement and convention made and concluded on the 9th day of December, 1854, between the United States, by George Hepner, United States Indian agent, and the chiefs and headmen of the confederate tribes of Otoe and Missouria Indians, being a supplement to the treaty made between the United States and said confederate tribes on the 15th day of March, 1854.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, January 10, 1855.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
I transmit herewith a report of the Attorney-General, with the accompanying documents, communicating the information required by the following resolution of the House of Representatives, of the 28th ultimo:
Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to communicate to this House any information possessed by him regarding a suit instituted in the Territory of Minnesota by or in the name of the United States against the Minnesota and Northwestern Railroad Company.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, January 11, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 3d instant, requesting "a statement of the names of the ministers, charges d'affaires, and the secretaries of legation of the United States appointed since the 4th of March, 1849, together with the dates of their commissions, the time of the commencement of their compensation, of their departure for their posts, and of their entering upon their official duties thereat," I transmit the accompanying report from the Secretary of State.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, January 16, 1855.
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
I transmit herewith a letter of the Secretary of War upon the subject of Indian hostilities. The employment of volunteer troops, as suggested by the Secretary, seems to afford the only practicable means of providing for the present emergency.
There is much reason to believe that other cases similar in character to those particularly referred to in the accompanying papers will at an early day require vigorous measures and the exhibition of a strong military force. The proposed temporary provision to meet a special demand, so far from obviating, in my judgment only serves to illustrate the urgent necessity of an increase of the Regular Army, at least to the extent recommended in my late annual message. Unless by the plan proposed, or some other equally effective, a force can be early brought into the field adequate to the suppression of existing hostilities, the combination of predatory bands will be extended and the difficulty of restoring order and security greatly magnified. On the other hand, without a permanent military force of sufficient strength to control the unfriendly Indians, it may be expected that hostilities will soon be renewed and that years of border warfare will afflict the country, retarding the progress of settlement, exposing emigrant trains to savage barbarities and consuming millions of the public money.
The state of things made known in various letters recently received at the War Department, extracts from a portion of which are herewith inclosed, is calculated to augment the deep solicitude which this matter has for some time past awakened, and which has been earnestly expressed in previous messages and in the annual reports of the Secretary of War.
I respectfully submit that the facts now communicated urgently call for immediate action on the part of Congress.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, January 17, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
In further compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 5th of December last, requesting copies of correspondence[36] between Major-General Wool and the different Departments of the Government, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the documents by which it was accompanied.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
[Footnote 36: Relating to affairs on the Pacific Coast.]
WASHINGTON, January 19, 1855.
To the House of Representatives:
In further compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 27th of July last, upon the subject of the case of Walter M. Gibson, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, January 19, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
I communicate to the Senate herewith a letter from the Secretary of the Interior, dated the 18th instant, covering a communication from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, with accompanying papers, and asking that certain appropriations be made for the service of the Indian Department.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, January 22, 1855.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
I communicate to Congress herewith a communication of this date from the Secretary of the Interior, with accompanying papers, and recommend that the appropriation[37] therein asked for be made.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
[Footnote 37: For payment of interest due the Cherokee Indians.]
WASHINGTON, January 24, 1855.
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of the Interior and the Postmaster-General, together with accompanying documents, communicating what has been done in execution of the act of Congress of August 2, 1854, entitled "An act to provide for the accommodation of the courts of the United States in the cities of New York and Philadelphia."
I have deemed it best under the circumstances not to enter into contracts for the purchase of sites, but to submit all proposals made, in response to public advertisement for several weeks in the principal newspapers in each of the cities designated, to Congress, for such action as it may deem proper to take in fulfillment of the original design of the before-mentioned act.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, January 29, 1855.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
I transmit to Congress herewith a communication of this date from the Secretary of the Interior, with accompanying papers, and recommend that the appropriations therein asked for be made.
I avail myself of the occasion to suggest a modification of existing laws, with a view to enable me more effectually to carry into execution the treaties with the different Indian tribes in Kansas Territory.
With an earnest desire to promote the early settlement of the ceded lands, as well as those held in trust and to be sold for the benefit of the Indians, I shall exercise all the power intrusted to me to maintain strictly and in good faith our treaty obligations.
I respectfully recommend that provisions be made by law requiring the lands which are to be sold on account of the Indians by the Government to be appraised and classified; a minimum price to be fixed, for a less sum than which no sales shall be made without further provision of law; and authorizing the sale of the lands in such quantities and at such times and places as the obligations of the Government, the rights of the Indian tribes, and the public interest, with reference to speedy settlement, may render expedient.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, January 30, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 6th of December last, requesting the President "to communicate to the Senate, if in his opinion not incompatible with the public interest, the instructions, correspondence, and other documents relating to the naval expedition to Japan, and the proceedings and negotiations resulting in a treaty with the Government thereof," I transmit the inclosed report from the Secretary of the Navy, with the accompanying documents.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, February 1, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit to the Senate, with a view to ratification, a convention which was concluded between the United States and Mexico at the City of Mexico on the 8th day of January last.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, February 4, 1855.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
I communicate to Congress herewith, for its consideration, the accompanying papers from the Secretary of the Interior, on the subject of the proviso of the act of July 31, 1854, in relation to the removal of the California Indians.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, February 4, 1855.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
I communicate to Congress the accompanying papers[38] from the Secretary of the Interior, and recommend that the appropriations therein asked for may be made.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
[Footnote 38: Relating to the expenses necessary to be incurred in colonizing the Texas Indians.]
WASHINGTON, February 5, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
I communicate to the Senate herewith, for its constitutional action thereon, articles of agreement and convention made and concluded at the city of Washington on the 31st day of January, 1855, by George W. Manypenny, as commissioner on the part of the United States, and the chiefs and delegates of the Wyandott tribe of Indians.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, February 6, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 11th ultimo, in relation to the case of Francis W. Rice,[39] late United States consul at Acapulco, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, with the accompanying documents.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
[Footnote 39: Arrested and imprisoned at Acapulco, Mexico.]
WASHINGTON, February 6, 1855.
To the House of Representatives:
I transmit herewith a report[40] from the Secretary of State, in answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 27th ultimo.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
[Footnote 40: Stating that the information relative to the applicability to the Spanish colonies of the treaty of 1795 with Spain, and whether American citizens residing in said colonies are entitled to the benefits of its provisions, had been already transmitted.]
WASHINGTON, February 7, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit to the Senate, for its advice with regard to ratification, a convention for the mutual extradition of fugitives from justice in certain cases between the United States and His Majesty the King of Hanover, signed by the plenipotentiaries of the two Governments at London on the 18th of January last. An extract from a dispatch of Mr. Buchanan to the Secretary of State relative to the convention is also herewith communicated.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, February 7, 1855.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
I communicate to Congress herewith a letter and accompanying papers from the Secretary of the Interior, of the 5th instant, on the subject of the colonization of the Indians in the State of California, and recommend that the appropriation therein asked for may be made.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, February 7, 1855.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
I communicate to Congress the accompanying letter from the Secretary of the Interior, with its inclosure, on the subject of a treaty between the United States and the Chippewa Indians of Lake Superior, and recommend that the appropriation therein asked for may be made.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, February 9, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
I communicate to the Senate herewith a report from the Secretary of the Treasury, and also one from the Secretary of the Interior, with accompanying papers, containing information called for by the resolution adopted by the Senate on the 30th ultimo, respecting the advance of public moneys to the marshal of the United States for the western district of Arkansas.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, February 9, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
I herewith communicate to the Senate, for its constitutional action thereon, the articles of convention and agreement between the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes of Indians made on the 4th day of November, 1854, at Doaksville, near Fort Towson, Choctaw Nation.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, February 12, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
The resolution of the Senate of the 11th of December last, requesting a copy of the official correspondence relative to the late difficulties between the consul of France at San Francisco and the authorities of the United States in California, has been under consideration, and it was hoped that the negotiations on the subject might have been brought to a close, so as to have obviated any objection to a compliance with the resolution at this session of Congress. Those negotiations, however, are still pending, but I entertain a confident expectation that the affair will be definitely and satisfactorily adjusted prior to the next session.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, February 14, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to ratification, a convention between the United States and His Majesty the King of the Netherlands, upon the subject of the admission of the United States consuls into the ports of the Dutch colonies.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, February 14, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to ratification, a convention between the United States and His Majesty the King of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, relative to the rights of neutrals during war.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, February 17, 1855.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
I communicate herewith a letter[41] of the Secretary of the Interior and accompanying paper, for the consideration of Congress.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
[Footnote 41: Recommending an appropriation to supply a deficit in the amount held on Indian account, caused by the failure of Selden, Withers & Co., with whom it was deposited.]
WASHINGTON, February 19, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith, for the constitutional action of the Senate, a treaty made on the 15th day of November, 1854, by Joel Palmer, superintendent of Indian affairs, on the part of the United States, and the chiefs and headmen of the Rogue River Indians in Oregon Territory.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, February 19, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith, for the constitutional action of the Senate, a treaty made by Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian affairs in Washington Territory, on the part of the United States, and the chiefs, headmen, and delegates of the Nesqually, Puyallup, Steilacoom, Squawksin, S'Homamish, Ste'h-chass, F'peeksin, Squi-aitl, and Sa-heh-wamish tribes and bands of Indians occupying the lands lying around the head of Pugets Sound and the adjacent inlets in Washington Territory.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, February 19, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith, for the constitutional action of the Senate, two treaties, one made on the 18th day of November, 1854, by Joel Palmer, superintendent of Indian affairs, on the part of the United States, and the chiefs and headmen of the Quil-si-eton and Na-hel-ta bands of the Chasta tribe of Indians, the Cow-non-ti-co, Sa-cher-i-ton, and Na-al-ye bands of Scotans, and the Grave Creek band of Umpqua Indians in Oregon Territory; the other, made on the 29th of November, 1854, by Joel Palmer, superintendent of Indian affairs, on the part of the United States, and the chiefs and headmen of the confederated bands of the Umpqua tribe of Indians and the Calaponas, residing in Umpqua Valley, Oregon Territory.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, February 21, 1855.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
I communicate to Congress a communication of this date from the Secretary of the Interior, with the accompanying paper, and recommend that the appropriation[42] therein asked for be made.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
[Footnote 42: For extending and improving the culvert running from the United States Capitol Grounds down the center of South Capitol street toward the canal.]
WASHINGTON, February 22, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 21st instant, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, inclosing a copy of the letter[43] addressed to the Department of State on the 17th November, 1852, by Mr. Joaquin J. de Osma, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the Republic of Peru.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
[Footnote 43: Proposing a settlement of the Lobos Islands controversy.]
WASHINGTON, February 23, 1855.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
I communicate to Congress herewith a communication of this date from the Secretary of the Interior, with accompanying estimates, and recommend that the appropriation[44] therein asked for be made.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
[Footnote 44: To fulfill treaty stipulations with the Wyandotte Indians.]
WASHINGTON, February 24, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 22d instant, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, together with the copy of a communication from Francis W. Rice,[45] therein referred to.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
[Footnote 45: Late United States consul at Acapulco, relative to outrages committed upon him by authorities of Mexico.]
WASHINGTON, February 26, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of the Navy, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 20th instant, requesting the President "to communicate to the Senate a copy of the order issued by the Navy Department to the officer in command of the Home Squadron in pursuance of which the United States sloop of war Albany was ordered on her last cruise to Carthagena and Aspinwall, etc.; also of the orders given by such officer to Commander Gerry to proceed upon such cruise, and also of any reports or letters from the captain of the Albany on the necessity of repairs to said vessel."
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, February 27, 1855.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
I transmit to Congress herewith a communication of this date from the Secretary of the Interior, and recommend that the appropriation[46] therein asked for be made.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
[Footnote 46: For surveying public lands in the northern part of Minnesota Territory acquired from the Chippewa Indians.]
WASHINGTON, February 27, 1855.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
I communicate herewith, for the consideration of Congress, a letter of this date from the Secretary of the Interior, and accompanying paper, recommending certain appropriations[47] on account of the Indian service.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
[Footnote 47: For running the boundary line between the Chickasaw and Choctaw nations of Indians and for negotiations with the Menominee Indians.]
WASHINGTON, February 27, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
I communicate to the Senate herewith, for its constitutional action thereon, a treaty made in this city on the 22d instant between the United States and the Mississippi, the Pillager, and the Lake Winnibigoshish bands of Chippewa Indians.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, February 28, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
For eminent services in the late war with Mexico, I nominate Major-General Winfield Scott, of the Army of the United States, to be lieutenant-general by brevet in the same, to take rank as such from March 29, 1847, the day on which the United States forces under his command captured Vera Cruz and the castle of San Juan de Ulua.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, February 28, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
I communicate to the Senate herewith, for its constitutional action thereon, a treaty made and concluded in this city on the 27th day of February, 1855, between George W. Manypenny, commissioner on the part of the United States, and the chiefs and delegates of the Winnebago tribe of Indians.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, March 1, 1855.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
I communicate to Congress herewith a copy of an act of the legislature of the State of Texas, approved the 11th of February, 1854, making partial provision for running and marking the boundary line between the said State and the territories of the United States from the point where the said line leaves the Red River to its intersection with the Rio Grande, and appropriating $10,000 toward carrying the same into effect, when the United States shall have made provision by the enactment of a law for the appointment of the necessary officers to join in the execution of said survey.
It will be perceived from the accompanying papers that the early demarcation of said boundary line is urgently desired on the part of Texas, and, acquiescing in the importance thereof, I recommend that provision be made by law for the appointment of officers to act in conjunction with those to be appointed by the State of Texas, and that the sum of $10,000 at least be appropriated for the payment of their salaries and necessary incidental expenses.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, March 2, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
I communicate to the Senate herewith, for its constitutional action thereon, the articles of a treaty negotiated on the 4th of January, 1855, between Joel Palmer, superintendent of Indian affairs in Oregon, and the chiefs of certain confederated tribes of Indians residing in the Willamette Valley of Oregon.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 2, 1855.
To the Senate of the United States:
I herewith submit a report of the Secretary of War, containing all the information that can now be furnished in reply to the resolution of the Senate of the 28th ultimo, requesting "a statement of the number of muskets, rifles, and other arms and equipments delivered to the State arsenals, respectively, the number remaining on hand, and the number sold and accounted for; also, the date and amount of such sales."
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
WASHINGTON, March 2, 1855.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
I transmit to Congress herewith a communication of this date from the Secretary of the Interior, with accompanying papers,[48] and recommend that the appropriations therein asked for be made.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
[Footnote 48: Estimates of appropriations necessary for carrying out the bounty-land law.]
WASHINGTON, March 2, 1855.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
I transmit to Congress herewith a communication of this date from the Secretary of the Interior, with its inclosure,[49] and recommend that the appropriations therein asked for be made.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
[Footnote 49: Additional estimate of appropriations necessary for pay of Indian agents.]
WASHINGTON, March 3, 1855.
To the House of Representatives:
I transmit herewith to the House of Representatives a report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying documents,[50] in answer to their resolutions of the 30th of January and 23d February last.
FRANKLIN PIERCE.
[Footnote 50: Correspondence relative to the causes disturbing the friendly relations between Spain and the United States and instructions to United States diplomatic agents relative to the same; correspondence relative to Cuba, etc.]
VETO MESSAGES.
WASHINGTON, February 17, 1855.
To the House of Representatives:
I have received and carefully considered the bill entitled "An act to provide for the ascertainment of claims of American citizens for spoliations committed by the French prior to the 31st of July, 1801," and in the discharge of a duty imperatively enjoined on me by the Constitution I return the same with my objections to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.
In the organization of the Government of the United States the legislative and executive functions were separated and placed in distinct hands. Although the President is required from time to time to recommend to the consideration of Congress such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient, his participation in the formal business of legislation is limited to the single duty, in a certain contingency, of demanding for a bill a particular form of vote prescribed by the Constitution before it can become a law. He is not invested with power to defeat legislation by an absolute veto, but only to restrain it, and is charged with the duty, in case he disapproves a measure, of invoking a second and a more deliberate and solemn consideration of it on the part of Congress. It is not incumbent on the President to sign a bill as a matter of course, and thus merely to authenticate the action of Congress, for he must exercise intelligent judgment or be faithless to the trust reposed in him. If he approve a bill, he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated for such further action as the Constitution demands, which is its enactment, if at all, not by a bare numerical majority, as in the first instance, but by a constitutional majority of two-thirds of both Houses.
While the Constitution thus confers on the legislative bodies the complete power of legislation in all cases, it proceeds, in the spirit of justice, to provide for the protection of the responsibility of the President. It does not compel him to affix the signature of approval to any bill unless it actually have his approbation; for while it requires him to sign if he approve, it, in my judgment, imposes upon him the duty of withholding his signature if he do not approve. In the execution of his official duty in this respect he is not to perform a mere mechanical part, but is to decide and act according to conscientious convictions of the rightfulness or wrongfulness of the proposed law. In a matter as to which he is doubtful in his own mind he may well defer to the majority of the two Houses. Individual members of the respective Houses, owing to the nature, variety, and amount of business pending, must necessarily rely for their guidance in many, perhaps most, cases, when the matters involved are not of popular interest, upon the investigation of appropriate committees, or, it may be, that of a single member, whose attention has been particularly directed to the subject. For similar reasons, but even to a greater extent, from the number and variety of subjects daily urged upon his attention, the President naturally relies much upon the investigation had and the results arrived at by the two Houses, and hence those results, in large classes of cases, constitute the basis upon which his approval rests. The President's responsibility is to the whole people of the United States, as that of a Senator is to the people of a particular State, that of a Representative to the people of a State or district; and it may be safely assumed that he will not resort to the clearly defined and limited power of arresting legislation and calling for reconsideration of any measure except in obedience to requirements of duty. When, however, he entertains a decisive and fixed conclusion, not merely of the unconstitutionality, but of the impropriety, or injustice in other respects, of any measure, if he declare that he approves it he is false to his oath, and he deliberately disregards his constitutional obligations.
I cheerfully recognize the weight of authority which attaches to the action of a majority of the two Houses. But in this case, as in some others, the framers of our Constitution, for wise considerations of public good, provided that nothing less than a two-thirds vote of one or both of the Houses of Congress shall become effective to bind the coordinate departments of the Government, the people, and the several States. If there be anything of seeming invidiousness in the official right thus conferred on the President, it is in appearance only, for the same right of approving or disapproving a bill, according to each one's own judgment, is conferred on every member of the Senate and of the House of Representatives.
It is apparent, therefore, that the circumstances must be extraordinary which would induce the President to withhold approval from a bill involving no violation of the Constitution. The amount of the claims proposed to be discharged by the bill before me, the nature of the transactions in which those claims are alleged to have originated, the length of time during which they have occupied the attention of Congress and the country, present such an exigency. Their history renders it impossible that a President who has participated to any considerable degree in public affairs could have failed to form respecting them a decided opinion upon what he would deem satisfactory grounds. Nevertheless, instead of resting on former opinions, it has seemed to me proper to review and more carefully examine the whole subject, so as satisfactorily to determine the nature and extent of my obligations in the premises.
I feel called upon at the threshold to notice an assertion, often repeated, that the refusal of the United States to satisfy these claims in the manner provided by the present bill rests as a stain on the justice of our country. If it be so, the imputation on the public honor is aggravated by the consideration that the claims are coeval with the present century, and it has been a persistent wrong during that whole period of time. The allegation is that private property has been taken for public use without just compensation, in violation of express provision of the Constitution, and that reparation has been withheld and justice denied until the injured parties have for the most part descended to the grave. But it is not to be forgotten or overlooked that those who represented the people in different capacities at the time when the alleged obligations were incurred, and to whom the charge of injustice attaches in the first instance, have also passed away and borne with them the special information which controlled their decision and, it may be well presumed, constituted the justification of their acts.
If, however, the charge in question be well founded, although its admission would inscribe on our history a page which we might desire most of all to obliterate, and although, if true, it must painfully disturb our confidence in the justice and the high sense of moral and political responsibility of those whose memories we have been taught to cherish with so much reverence and respect, still we have only one course of action left to us, and that is to make the most prompt and ample reparation in our power and consign the wrong as far as may be to forgetfulness.
But no such heavy sentence of condemnation should be lightly passed upon the sagacious and patriotic men who participated in the transactions out of which these claims are supposed to have arisen, and who, from their ample means of knowledge of the general subject in its minute details and from their official position, are peculiarly responsible for whatever there is of wrong or injustice in the decisions of the Government.
Their justification consists in that which constitutes the objection to the present bill, namely, the absence of any indebtedness on the part of the United States. The charge of denial of justice in this case, and consequent stain upon our national character, has not yet been indorsed by the American people. But if it were otherwise, this bill, so far from relieving the past, would only stamp on the present a more deep and indelible stigma. It admits the justice of the claims, concedes that payment has been wrongfully withheld for fifty years, and then proposes not to pay them, but to compound with the public creditors by providing that, whether the claims shall be presented or not, whether the sum appropriated shall pay much or little of what shall be found due, the law itself shall constitute a perpetual bar to all future demands. This is not, in my judgment, the way to atone for wrongs if they exist, nor to meet subsisting obligations.
If new facts, not known or not accessible during the Administration of Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, or Mr. Monroe, had since been brought to light, or new sources of information discovered, this would greatly relieve the subject of embarrassment. But nothing of this nature has occurred.
That those eminent statesmen had the best means of arriving at a correct conclusion no one will deny. That they never recognized the alleged obligation on the part of the Government is shown by the history of their respective Administrations. Indeed, it stands not as a matter of controlling authority, but as a fact of history, that these claims have never since our existence as a nation been deemed by any President worthy of recommendation to Congress.
Claims to payment can rest only on the plea of indebtedness on the part of the Government. This requires that it should be shown that the United States have incurred liability to the claimants, either by such acts as deprived them of their property or by having actually taken it for public use without making just compensation for it.
The first branch of the proposition—that on which an equitable claim to be indemnified by the United States for losses sustained might rest—requires at least a cursory examination of the history of the transactions on which the claims depend. The first link which in the chain of events arrests attention is the treaties of alliance and of amity and commerce between the United States and France negotiated in 1778. By those treaties peculiar privileges were secured to the armed vessels of each of the contracting parties in the ports of the other, the freedom of trade was greatly enlarged, and mutual obligations were incurred by each to guarantee to the other their territorial possessions in America.
In 1792-93, when war broke out between France and Great Britain, the former claimed privileges in American ports which our Government did not admit as deducible from the treaties of 1778, and which it was held were in conflict with obligations to the other belligerent powers. The liberal principle of one of the treaties referred to—that free ships make free goods, and that subsistence and supplies were not contraband of war unless destined to a blockaded port—was found, in a commercial view, to operate disadvantageously to France as compared with her enemy, Great Britain, the latter asserting, under the law of nations, the right to capture as contraband supplies when bound for an enemy's port.
Induced mainly, it is believed, by these considerations, the Government of France decreed on the 9th of May, 1793, the first year of the war, that "the French people are no longer permitted to fulfill toward the neutral powers in general the vows they have so often manifested, and which they constantly make for the full and entire liberty of commerce and navigation," and, as a counter measure to the course of Great Britain, authorized the seizure of neutral vessels bound to an enemy's port in like manner as that was done by her great maritime rival. This decree was made to act retrospectively, and to continue until the enemies of France should desist from depredations on the neutral vessels bound to the ports of France. Then followed the embargo, by which our vessels were detained in Bordeaux; the seizure of British goods on board of our ships, and of the property of American citizens under the pretense that it belonged to English subjects, and the imprisonment of American citizens captured on the high seas.
Against these infractions of existing treaties and violations of our rights as a neutral power we complained and remonstrated. For the property of our injured citizens we demanded that due compensation should be made, and from 1793 to 1797 used every means, ordinary and extraordinary, to obtain redress by negotiation. In the last-mentioned year these efforts were met by a refusal to receive a minister sent by our Government with special instructions to represent the amicable disposition of the Government and people of the United States and their desire to remove jealousies and to restore confidence by showing that the complaints against them were groundless. Failing in this, another attempt to adjust all differences between the two Republics was made in the form of an extraordinary mission, composed of three distinguished citizens, but the refusal to receive was offensively repeated, and thus terminated this last effort to preserve peace and restore kind relations with our early friend and ally, to whom a debt of gratitude was due which the American people have never been willing to depreciate or to forget. Years of negotiation had not only failed to secure indemnity for our citizens and exemption from further depredation, but these long-continued efforts had brought upon the Government the suspension of diplomatic intercourse with France and such indignities as to induce President Adams, in his message of May 16, 1797, to Congress, convened in special session, to present it as the particular matter for their consideration and to speak of it in terms of the highest indignation. Thenceforward the action of our Government assumed a character which clearly indicates that hope was no longer entertained from the amicable feeling or justice of the Government of France, and hence the subsequent measures were those of force.
On the 28th of May, 1798, an act was passed for the employment of the Navy of the United States against "armed vessels of the Republic of France," and authorized their capture if "found hovering on the coast of the United States for the purpose of committing depredations on the vessels belonging to the citizens thereof;" on the 18th of June, 1798, an act was passed prohibiting commercial intercourse with France under the penalty of the forfeiture of the vessels so employed; on the 25th of June, the same year, an act to arm the merchant marine to oppose searches, capture aggressors, and recapture American vessels taken by the French; on the 28th of June, same year, an act for the condemnation and sale of French vessels captured by authority of the act of 28th of May preceding; on the 27th of July, same year, an act abrogating the treaties and the convention which had been concluded between the United States and France, and declaring "that the same shall not henceforth be regarded as legally obligatory on the Government or citizens of the United States;" on the 9th of the same month an act was passed which enlarged the limits of the hostilities then existing by authorizing our public vessels to capture armed vessels of France wherever found upon the high seas, and conferred power on the President to issue commissions to private armed vessels to engage in like service.
These acts, though short of a declaration of war, which would put ail the citizens of each country in hostility with those of the other, were, nevertheless, actual war, partial in its application, maritime in its character, but which required the expenditure of much of our public treasure and much of the blood of our patriotic citizens, who, in vessels but little suited to the purposes of war, went forth to battle on the high seas for the rights and security of their fellow-citizens and to repel indignities offered to the national honor.
It is not, then, because of any failure to use all available means, diplomatic and military, to obtain reparation that liability for private claims can have been incurred by the United States, and if there is any pretense for such liability it must flow from the action, not from the neglect, of the United States. The first complaint on the part of France was against the proclamation of President Washington of April 22, 1793. At that early period in the war which involved Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, the United Netherlands, and Great Britain on the one part and France on the other, the great and wise man who was the Chief Executive, as he was and had been the guardian of our then infant Republic, proclaimed that "the duty and interest of the United States require that they should with sincerity and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial toward the belligerent powers." This attitude of neutrality, it was pretended, was in disregard of the obligations of alliance between the United States and France. And this, together with the often-renewed complaint that the stipulations of the treaties of 1778 had not been observed and executed by the United States, formed the pretext for the series of outrages upon our Government and its citizens which finally drove us to seek redress and safety by an appeal to force. The treaties of 1778, so long the subject of French complaints, are now understood to be the foundation upon which are laid these claims of indemnity from the United States for spoliations committed by the French prior to 1800. The act of our Government which abrogated not only the treaties of 1778, but also the subsequent consular convention of 1788, has already been referred to, and it may be well here to inquire what the course of France was in relation thereto. By the decrees of 9th of May, 1793, 7th of July, 1796, and 2d of March, 1797, the stipulations which were then and subsequently most important to the United States were rendered wholly inoperative. The highly injurious effects which these decrees are known to have produced show how vital were the provisions of treaty which they violated, and make manifest the incontrovertible right of the United States to declare, as the consequence of these acts of the other contracting party, the treaties at an end.
The next step in this inquiry is whether the act declaring the treaties null and void was ever repealed, or whether by any other means the treaties were ever revived so as to be either the subject or the source of national obligation. The war which has been described was terminated by the treaty of Paris of 1800, and to that instrument it is necessary to turn to find how much of preexisting obligations between the two Governments outlived the hostilities in which they had been engaged. By the second article of the treaty of 1800 it was declared that the ministers plenipotentiary of the two parties not being able to agree respecting the treaties of alliance, amity, and commerce of 1778 and the convention of 1788, nor upon the indemnities mutually due or claimed, the parties will negotiate further on these subjects at a convenient time; and until they shall have agreed upon these points the said treaties and convention shall have no operation.
When the treaty was submitted to the Senate of the United States, the second article was disagreed to and the treaty amended by striking it out and inserting a provision that the convention then made should continue in force eight years from the date of ratification, which convention, thus amended, was accepted by the First Consul of France, with the addition of a note explanatory of his construction of the convention, to the effect that by the retrenchment of the second article the two States renounce the respective pretensions which were the object of the said article.
It will be perceived by the language of the second article, as originally framed by the negotiators, that they had found themselves unable to adjust the controversies on which years of diplomacy and of hostilities had been expended, and that they were at last compelled to postpone the discussion of those questions to that most indefinite period, a "convenient time." All, then, of these subjects which was revived by the convention was the right to renew, when it should be convenient to the parties, a discussion which had already exhausted negotiation, involved the two countries in a maritime war, and on which the parties had approached no nearer to concurrence than they were when the controversy began.
The obligations of the treaties of 1778 and the convention of 1788 were mutual, and estimated to be equal. But however onerous they may have been to the United States, they had been abrogated, and were not revived by the convention of 1800, but expressly spoken of as suspended until an event which could only occur by the pleasure of the United States. It seems clear, then, that the United States were relieved of no obligation to France by the retrenchment of the second article of the convention, and if thereby France was relieved of any valid claims against her the United States received no consideration in return, and that if private property was taken by the United States from their own citizens it was not for public use. But it is here proper to inquire whether the United States did relieve France from valid claims against her on the part of citizens of the United States, and did thus deprive them of their property.
The complaints and counter complaints of the two Governments had been that treaties were violated and that both public and individual rights and interests had been sacrificed. The correspondence of our ministers engaged in negotiations, both before and after the convention of 1800, sufficiently proves how hopeless was the effort to obtain full indemnity from France for injuries inflicted on our commerce from 1793 to 1800, unless it should be by an account in which the rival pretensions of the two Governments should each be acknowledged and the balance struck between them.
It is supposable, and may be inferred from the contemporaneous history as probable, that had the United States agreed in 1800 to revive the treaties of 1778 and 1788 with the construction which France had placed upon them, that the latter Government would, on the other hand, have agreed to make indemnity for those spoliations which were committed under the pretext that the United States were faithless to the obligations of the alliance between the two countries.
Hence the conclusion that the United States did not sacrifice private rights or property to get rid of public obligations, but only refused to reassume public obligations for the purpose of obtaining the recognition of the claims of American citizens on the part of France.
All those claims which the French Government was willing to admit were carefully provided for elsewhere in the convention, and the declaration of the First Consul, which was appended in his additional note, had no other application than to the claims which had been mutually made by the Governments, but on which they had never approximated to an adjustment. In confirmation of the fact that our Government did not intend to cease from the prosecution of the just claims of our citizens against France, reference is here made to the annual message of President Jefferson of December 8, 1801, which opens with expressions of his gratification at the restoration of peace among sister nations; and, after speaking of the assurances received from all nations with whom we had principal relations and of the confidence thus inspired that our peace with them would not have been disturbed if they had continued at war with each other, he proceeds to say:
But a cessation of irregularities which had affected the commerce of neutral nations, and of the irritations and injuries produced by them, can not but add to this confidence, and strengthens at the same time the hope that wrongs committed on unoffending friends under a pressure of circumstances will now be reviewed with candor, and will be considered as founding just claims of retribution for the past and new assurance for the future.
The zeal and diligence with which the claims of our citizens against France were prosecuted appear in the diplomatic correspondence of the three years next succeeding the convention of 1800, and the effect of these efforts is made manifest in the convention of 1803, in which provision was made for payment of a class of cases the consideration of which France had at all previous periods refused to entertain, and which are of that very class which it has been often assumed were released by striking out the second article of the convention of 1800. This is shown by reference to the preamble and to the fourth and fifth articles of the convention of 1803, by which were admitted among the debts due by France to citizens of the United States the amounts chargeable for "prizes made at sea in which the appeal has been properly lodged within the time mentioned in the said convention of the 30th of September, 1800;" and this class was further defined to be only "captures of which the council of prizes shall have ordered restitution, it being well understood that the claimant can not have recourse to the United States otherwise than he might have had to the French Republic, and only in case of the insufficiency of the captors."
If, as was affirmed on all hands, the convention of 1803 was intended to close all questions between the Governments of France and the United States, and 20,000,000 francs were set apart as a sum which might exceed, but could not fall short of, the debts due by France to the citizens of the United States, how are we to reconcile the claim now presented with the estimates made by those who were of the time and immediately connected with the events, and whose intelligence and integrity have in no small degree contributed to the character and prosperity of the country in which we live? Is it rational to assume that the claimants who now present themselves for indemnity by the United States represent debts which would have been admitted and paid by France but for the intervention of the United States? And is it possible to escape from the effect of the voluminous evidence tending to establish the fact that France resisted all these claims; that it was only after long and skillful negotiation that the agents of the United States obtained the recognition of such of the claims as were provided for in the conventions of 1800 and 1803? And is it not conclusive against any pretensions of possible success on the part of the claimants, if left unaided to make their applications to France, that the only debts due to American citizens which have been paid by France are those which were assumed by the United States as part of the consideration in the purchase of Louisiana?
There is little which is creditable either to the judgment or patriotism of those of our fellow-citizens who at this day arraign the justice, the fidelity, or love of country of the men who founded the Republic in representing them as having bartered away the property of individuals to escape from public obligations, and then to have withheld from them just compensation. It has been gratifying to me in tracing the history of these claims to find that ample evidence exists to refute an accusation which would impeach the purity, the justice, and the magnanimity of the illustrious men who guided and controlled the early destinies of the Republic.
I pass from this review of the history of the subject, and, omitting many substantial objections to these claims, proceed to examine somewhat more closely the only grounds upon which they can by possibility be maintained.
Before entering on this it may be proper to state distinctly certain propositions which it is admitted on all hands are essential to prove the obligations of the Government.
First. That at the date of the treaty of September 30, 1800, these claims were valid and subsisting as against France.
Second. That they were released or extinguished by the United States in that treaty and by the manner of its ratification.
Third. That they were so released or extinguished for a consideration valuable to the Government, but in which the claimants had no more interest than any other citizens.
The convention between the French Republic and the United States of America signed at Paris on the 30th day of September, 1800, purports in the preamble to be founded on the equal desire of the First Consul (Napoleon Bonaparte) and the President of the United States to terminate the differences which have arisen between the two States. It declares, in the first place, that there shall be firm, inviolable, and universal peace and a true and sincere friendship between the French Republic and the United States. Next it proceeds, in the second, third, fourth, and fifth articles, to make provision in sundry respects, having reference to past differences and the transition from the state of war between the two countries to that of general and permanent peace. Finally, in the residue of the twenty-seventh article, it stipulates anew the conditions of amity and intercourse, commercial and political, thereafter to exist, and, of course, to be substituted in place of the previous conditions of the treaties of alliance and of commerce and the consular convention, which are thus tacitly but unequivocally recognized as no longer in force, but in effect abrogated, either by the state of war or by the political action of the two Republics.
Except in so far as the whole convention goes to establish the fact that the previous treaties were admitted on both sides to be at an end, none of the articles are directly material to the present question save the following:
ART. II. The ministers plenipotentiary of the two parties not being able to agree at present respecting the treaty of alliance of 6th February, 1778, the treaty of amity and commerce of the same date, and the convention of 14th of November, 1788, nor upon the indemnities mutually due or claimed, the parties will negotiate further on these subjects at a convenient time; and until they may have agreed upon these points the said treaties and convention shall have no operation, and the relations of the two countries shall be regulated as follows:
* * * * *
ART. V. The debts contracted by one of the two nations with individuals of the other, or by the individuals of one with the individuals of the other, shall be paid, or the payment may be prosecuted, in the same manner as if there had been no misunderstanding between the two States. But this clause shall not extend to indemnities claimed on account of captures or confiscations.
On this convention being submitted to the Senate of the United States, they consented and advised to its ratification with the following proviso:
Provided, That the second article be expunged, and that the following article be added or inserted: It is agreed that the present convention shall be in force for the term of eight years from the time of the exchange of ratifications.
The spirit and purpose of this change are apparent and unmistakable. The convention as signed by the respective plenipotentiaries did not adjust all the points of controversy. Both nations, however, desired the restoration of peace. Accordingly, as to those matters in the relations of the two countries concerning which they could agree, they did agree for the time being; and as to the rest, concerning which they could not agree, they suspended and postponed further negotiation.
They abandoned no pretensions, they relinquished no right on either side, but simply adjourned the question until "a convenient time." Meanwhile, and until the arrival of such convenient time, the relations of the two countries were to be regulated by the stipulations of the convention.
Of course the convention was on its face a temporary and provisional one, but in the worst possible form of prospective termination. It was to cease at a convenient time. But how should that convenient time be ascertained? It is plain that such a stipulation, while professedly not disposing of the present controversy, had within itself the germ of a fresh one, for the two Governments might at any moment fall into dispute on the question whether that convenient time had or had not arrived. The Senate of the United States anticipated and prevented this question by the only possible expedient; that is, the designation of a precise date. This being done, the remaining parts of the second article became superfluous and useless, for as all the provisions of the convention would expire in eight years, it would necessarily follow that negotiations must be renewed within that period, more especially as the operation of the amendment which covered the whole convention was that even the stipulation of peace in the first article became temporary and expired in eight years, whereas that article, and that article alone, was permanent according to the original tenor of the convention.
The convention thus amended, being submitted to the First Consul, was ratified by him, his act of acceptance being accompanied with the following declaratory note:
The Government of the United States having added in its ratification that the convention should be in force for the space of eight years, and having omitted the second article, the Government of the French Republic consents to accept, ratify, and confirm the above convention with the addition importing that the convention shall be in force for the space of eight years and with the retrenchment of the second article: Provided, That by this retrenchment the two States renounce the respective pretensions which are the object of the said article.
The convention, as thus ratified by the First Consul, having been again submitted to the Senate of the United States, that body resolved that "they considered the convention as fully ratified," and returned the same to the President for promulgation, and it was accordingly promulgated in the usual form by President Jefferson.
Now it is clear that in simply resolving that "they considered the convention as fully ratified" the Senate did in fact abstain from any express declaration of dissent or assent to the construction put by the First Consul on the retrenchment of the second article. If any inference beyond this can be drawn from their resolution, it is that they regarded the proviso annexed by the First Consul to his declaration of acceptance as foreign to the subject, as nugatory, or as without consequence or effect. Notwithstanding this proviso, they considered the ratification as full. If the new proviso made any change in the previous import of the convention, then it was not full; and in considering it a full ratification they in substance deny that the proviso did in any respect change the tenor of the convention.
By the second article, as it originally stood, neither Republic had relinquished its existing rights or pretensions, either as to other previous treaties or the indemnities mutually due or claimed, but only deferred the consideration of them to a convenient time. By the amendment of the Senate of the United States that convenient time, instead of being left indefinite, was fixed at eight years; but no right or pretension of either party was surrendered or abandoned.
If the Senate erred in assuming that the proviso added by the First Consul did not affect the question, then the transaction would amount to nothing more than to have raised a new question, to be disposed of on resuming the negotiations, namely, the question whether the proviso of the First Consul did or not modify or impair the effect of the convention as it had been ratified by the Senate.
That such, and such only, was the true meaning and effect of the transaction; that it was not, and was not intended to be, a relinquishment by the United States of any existing claim on France, and especially that it was not an abandonment of any claims of individual citizens, nor the set off of these against any conceded national obligations to France, is shown by the fact that President Jefferson did at once resume and prosecute to successful conclusion negotiations to obtain from France indemnification for the claims of citizens of the United States existing at the date of that convention; for on the 30th of April, 1803, three treaties were concluded at Paris between the United States of America and the French Republic, one of which embraced the cession of Louisiana; another stipulated for the payment of 60,000,000 francs by the United States to France; and a third provided that, for the satisfaction of sums due by France to citizens of the United States at the conclusion of the convention of September 30, 1800, and in express compliance with the second and fifth articles thereof, a further sum of 20,000,000 francs should be appropriated and paid by the United States. In the preamble to the first of these treaties, which ceded Louisiana, it is set forth that—
The President of the United States of America and the First Consul of the French Republic, in the name of the French people, desiring to remove all source of misunderstanding relative to objects of discussion mentioned in the second and fifth articles of the convention of the 8th Vendemiaire, an 9 (30th September, 1800), relative to the rights claimed by the United States in virtue of the treaty concluded at Madrid the 27th of October, 1795, between His Catholic Majesty and the said United States, and willing to strengthen the union and friendship which at the time of the said convention was happily reestablished between the two nations, have respectively named their plenipotentiaries, ... who ... have agreed to the following articles.
Here is the most distinct and categorical declaration of the two Governments that the matters of claim in the second article of the convention of 1800 had not been ceded away, relinquished, or set off, but they were still subsisting subjects of demand against France. The same declaration appears in equally emphatic language in the third of these treaties, bearing the same date, the preamble of which recites that—
The President of the United States of America and the First Consul of the French Republic, in the name of the French people, having by a treaty of this date terminated all difficulties relative to Louisiana and established on a solid foundation the friendship which unites the two nations, and being desirous, in compliance with the second and fifth articles of the convention of the 8th Vendemiaire, ninth year of the French Republic (30th September, 1800), to secure the payment of the sums due by France to the citizens of the United States, have appointed plenipotentiaries—
who agreed to the following among other articles:
ART. I. The debts due by France to citizens of the United States, contracted before the 8th of Vendemiaire, ninth year of the French Republic (30th September, 1800), shall be paid according to the following regulations, with interest at 6 per cent, to commence from the periods when the accounts and vouchers were presented to the French Government.
ART. II. The debts provided for by the preceding article are those whose result is comprised in the conjectural note annexed to the present convention, and which, with the interest, can not exceed the sum of 20,000,000 francs. The claims comprised in the said note which fall within the exceptions of the following articles shall not be admitted to the benefit of this provision.
* * * * *
ART. IV. It is expressly agreed that the preceding articles shall comprehend no debts but such as are due to citizens of the United States who have been and are yet creditors of France for supplies, for embargoes, and prizes made at sea in which the appeal has been properly lodged within the time mentioned in the said convention, 8th Vendemiaire, ninth year (30th September, 1800).
ART. V. The preceding articles shall apply only, first, to captures of which the council of prizes shall have ordered restitution, it being well understood that the claimant can not have recourse to the United States otherwise than he might have had to the Government of the French Republic, and only in case of insufficiency of the captors; second, the debts mentioned in the said fifth article of the convention, contracted before the 8th Vendemiaire, an 9 (30th September, 1800), the payment of which has been heretofore claimed of the actual Government of France and for which the creditors have a right to the protection of the United States; the said fifth article does not comprehend prizes whose condemnation has been or shall be confirmed. It is the express intention of the contracting parties not to extend the benefit of the present convention to reclamations of American citizens who shall have established houses of commerce in France, England, or other countries than the United States, in partnership with foreigners, and who by that reason and the nature of their commerce ought to be regarded as domiciliated in the places where such houses exist. All agreements and bargains concerning merchandise which shall not be the property of American citizens are equally excepted from the benefit of the said convention, saving, however, to such persons their claims in like manner as if this treaty had not been made.
* * * * *
ART. XII. In case of claims for debts contracted by the Government of France with citizens of the United States since the 8th Vendemiaire, ninth year (30th September, 1800), not being comprised in this convention, may be pursued, and the payment demanded in the same manner as if it had not been made.
Other articles of the treaty provide for the appointment of agents to liquidate the claims intended to be secured, and for the payment of them as allowed at the Treasury of the United States. The following is the concluding clause of the tenth article:
The rejection of any claim shall have no other effect than to exempt the United States from the payment of it, the French Government reserving to itself the right to decide definitively on such claim so far as it concerns itself.
Now, from the provisions of the treaties thus collated the following deductions undeniably follow, namely:
First. Neither the second article of the convention of 1800, as it originally stood, nor the retrenchment of that article, nor the proviso in the ratification by the First Consul, nor the action of the Senate of the United States thereon, was regarded by either France or the United States as the renouncement of any claims of American citizens against France.
Second. On the contrary, in the treaties of 1803 the two Governments took up the question precisely where it was left on the day of the signature of that of 1800, without suggestion on the part of France that the claims of our citizens were excluded by the retrenchment of the second article or the note of the First Consul, and proceeded to make ample provision for such as France could be induced to admit were justly due, and they were accordingly discharged in full, with interest, by the United States in the stead and behalf of France.
Third. The United States, not having admitted in the convention of 1800 that they were under any obligations to France by reason of the abrogation of the treaties of 1778 and 1788, persevered in this view of the question by the tenor of the treaties of 1803, and therefore had no such national obligation to discharge, and did not, either in purpose or in fact, at any time undertake to discharge themselves from any such obligation at the expense and with the property of individual citizens of the United States.
Fourth. By the treaties of 1803 the United States obtained from France the acknowledgment and payment, as part of the indemnity for the cession of Louisiana, of claims of citizens of the United States for spoliations, so far as France would admit her liability in the premises; but even then the United States did not relinquish any claim of American citizens not provided for by those treaties; so far from it, to the honor of France be it remembered, she expressly reserved to herself the right to reconsider any rejected claims of citizens of the United States.
Fifth. As to claims of citizens of the United States against France, which had been the subject of controversy between the two countries prior to the signature of the convention of 1800, and the further consideration of which was reserved for a more convenient time by the second article of that convention, for these claims, and these only, provision was made in the treaties of 1803, all other claims being expressly excluded by them from their scope and purview.
It is not to be overlooked, though not necessary to the conclusion, that by the convention between France and the United States of the 4th of July, 1831, complete provision was made for the liquidation, discharge, and payment on both sides of all claims of citizens of either against the other for unlawful seizures, captures, sequestrations, or destructions of the vessels, cargoes, or other property, without any limitation of time, so as in terms to run back to the date of the last preceding settlement, at least to that of 1803, if not to the commencement of our national relations with France.
This review of the successive treaties between France and the United States has brought my mind to the undoubting conviction that while the United States have in the most ample and the completest manner discharged their duty toward such of their citizens as may have been at any time aggrieved by acts of the French Government, so also France has honorably discharged herself of all obligations in the premises toward the United States. To concede what this bill assumes would be to impute undeserved reproach both to France and to the United States. |
|
