No censure can possibly be attributed to Lieutenant Whipple, whose great care and attention to all his duties have been on all occasions highly distinguished. He escaped from the fire with scarcely an article of his dress, and his loss in money and clothing is at least $1,000. Major Graham has lost his valuable library, together with personal effects to a large amount. The fire was communicated from the basement of the house, and by no effort could anything be saved.

There are tracings of the maps upon "tissue paper," without the topography, in the State of Maine, but they are not signed by the commissioners.

The field books of the engineers were, fortunately, not in Major Graham's office, and are preserved.

Duplicates of the maps, duly authenticated, have been placed in the British archives at London, which, although they have not the topography of the country so fully laid down upon them as it was upon our own, represent with equal exactness the survey of the boundary itself. Should it be deemed expedient by this Government to procure copies of them, access to those archives for that purpose would undoubtedly be permitted, and the object accomplished at small expense, and when completed these copies could be authenticated by the joint commissioners in accordance with the provisions of the treaty.

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

ALBERT SMITH.



Report of the joint commission of boundary appointed under the treaty of Washington of August 9, 1842.

The undersigned, commissioners appointed under the treaty of Washington to trace and mark the boundary, as directed by that treaty, between the British possessions in North America and the United States—that is to say, James Bucknall Bucknall Estcourt, lieutenant-colonel in the British army, appointed commissioner by Her Britannic Majesty, and Albert Smith, appointed commissioner by the President of the United States—having accomplished the duty assigned to them, do now, in accordance with the directions of the said treaty, submit the following report and the accompanying maps, jointly signed, to their respective Governments.

In obedience to the terms of the treaty, the undersigned met at Bangor, in the State of Maine, on the 1st day of May, 1843, where they produced and verified the authority under which they each were respectively to act. They then adjourned, because the weather was not sufficiently open for taking the field, to the 1st of the following month (June), and agreed to meet again at that time at Houlton.

Accordingly, they did meet at that place, and began their operations.

It may be desirable to state at the outset that for the sake of convenience the whole line of boundary marked by the undersigned has been divided in the mention made of the different portions into the following grand divisions, viz:

"North line," from the source of the St. Croix to the intersection of the St. John.

"River St. John," from the intersection of the north line to the mouth of the St. Francis.

"River St. Francis," from its mouth to the outlet of Lake Pohenagamook.

"Southwest line," from the outlet of Lake Pohenagamook to the Northwest Branch of the St. John.

"South line," from the Northwest Branch to the parallel of latitude 46 deg. 25' on the Southwest Branch.

"Southwest Branch," from the parallel 46 deg. 25' to its source.

"Highlands," from the source of the Southwest Branch of the St. John to the source of Halls Stream.

"Halls Stream," from its source to the intersection of the line of Valentine and Collins.

"West line," from Halls Stream to the St. Lawrence near St. Regis, along the line of Valentine and Collins.

To return to the narration of operations:

The exploring line of Colonel Bouchette and Mr. Johnson, as directed by the treaty, was traced from the monument at the source of the St. Croix to the intersection of the St. John.

The monument found at the source of the St. Croix, as described in the report of Colonel Bouchette and Mr. Johnson, and the course of their exploring line, was traced by blazes or marks upon the trees.

An old line, cut out by the assistant surveyors of Colonel Bouchette and Mr. Johnson, was also found, which terminated about half a mile north of the South Branch of the Meduxnikeag, where, by records to which the undersigned referred, they ascertained that it had been abandoned because of its deviation from the exploring line of Colonel Bouchette and Mr. Johnson.

After the exploration and re-marking of the north line it was cut out 30 feet wide. The same was afterwards done in all parts where the boundary passed through woodland. After thus opening the north line it was surveyed, and iron posts were erected at intervals to mark it.

The general bearing of the line was rather to the west of the meridian of the monument at the source of the St. Croix. The precise line laid down by the undersigned was determined by successive courses, of which each was made to be as long as was convenient, provided it did not pass out of the opening of 30 feet.

At each angle of deflection an iron monument was erected, and placed anglewise with the line. Other monuments were erected at the crossing of roads, rivers, and at every mile, commencing from the source of the St. Croix. Those which were not intended to mark angles of deflection were placed square with the line.

At the intersection of the St. John by the north line the river is deep and broad. The boundary runs up the middle of the channel of the river, as indicated by the maps, dividing the islands as follows:

No. 1. Ryan's Island................................ United States. No. 2. King's Island................................ United States. No. 3. Les Trois Isles.............................. United States. No. 4. La Septieme Isle............................. United States. No. 5. Quissibis.................................... Great Britain. No. 6. La Grand Isle................................ United States. No. 7. Thibideau's Islands.......................... United States. No. 8. Madawaska Islands............................ Great Britain. No. 9. Joseph Michaud's three islands............... United States. No. 10. Pine Island.................................. Great Britain. No. 11. Baker's } Turtle } Dagle's } islands ........................... Great Britain. Fourth } Fifth } No. 12. Kennedy's Island............................. Great Britain. No. 13. Crock's } Cranberry } islands......................... Great Britain. Gooseberry } No. 14. Savage's Island.............................. United States. No. 15. Wheelock's Island............................ United States. No. 16. Caton's Island............................... United States. No. 17. Honeywell's Island........................... United States. No. 18. Savage and Johnson's Island.................. United States. No. 19. Grew's Island................................ United States. No. 20. Kendall's Island............................. Great Britain.

The islands were distributed to Great Britain or to the United States, as they were found to be on the right or left of the deep channel. There was but one doubtful case, La Septieme Isle, and that was apportioned to the United States because the majority of the owners were ascertained to reside on the United States side of the river.

Monuments were erected upon the islands, marking them for Great Britain or the United States, as the case may have been.

After leaving the St. John the boundary enters the St. Francis, dividing the islands at the mouth of that river in the manner shown in the maps. It then runs up the St. Francis, through the middle of the lakes upon it, to the outlet of Lake Pohenagamook, the third large lake from the mouth of the river. At the outlet a large monument has been erected.

In order to determine the point on the Northwest Branch to which the treaty directed that a straight line should be run from the outlet of Lake Pohenagamook, a survey of that stream was made, and also of the main St. John in the neighborhood of the mouth of the Northwest Branch, and a line was cut between the St. John and the point on the Northwest Branch ascertained by the survey to be 10 miles in the nearest direction from it, and the distance was afterwards verified by chaining.

It was ascertained also, in accordance with the provisions of the treaty, by a triangulation of the country toward the highlands dividing the waters of the St. Lawrence and of the St. John, that more than 7 miles intervened between the point selected on the Northwest Branch and the crest of the dividing ridge. A large iron monument was afterwards erected on the point thus selected, and the space around was cleared and sown with grass seed. It is a short distance below the outlet of Lake Ishaganalshegeck.

The outlet of Lake Pohenagamook and the point on the Northwest Branch designated by the treaty having been thus ascertained and marked, in the spring of 1844 a straight line was run between them. Along that line, which passes entirely through forest, monuments were erected at every mile, at the crossings of the principal streams and rivers, and at the tops of those hills where a transit instrument had been set up to test the straightness of the line.

As soon as the parallel of latitude 46 deg. 25' had been determined on the Southwest Branch, in the early part of the summer of 1844, a straight line was drawn from the boundary point on the Northwest Branch to a large monument erected on the left bank of the Southwest Branch where it is intersected by the parallel of latitude 46 deg. 25'. The line so drawn crosses the Southwest Branch once before it reaches the parallel of latitude 46 deg. 25', and at about half a mile distance from that parallel. There also a large monument has been set up on the left bank.

From the intersection of the parallel 46 deg. 25' the boundary ascends the Southwest Branch, passes through a lake near its head, and so up a small stream which falls into the lake from the west to the source of that stream, which has been selected as the source of the Southwest Branch.

On the Southwest Branch there are two principal forks, at each of which two monuments have been erected, one on each bank of the river immediately above the forks and upon the branch established as the boundary. The maps point out their positions. At the mouth of the small stream selected as the source of the Southwest Branch a monument has been erected upon a delta formed by two small outlets. Above those outlets three other monuments have been placed at intervals upon the same stream.

Upon the crest of the dividing ridge, very close to the source of the Southwest Branch, a large monument has been erected. It is the first point in the highlands, and from it the boundary runs along the crest in a southerly direction, passing near to the southeastern shore of the Portage Lake, and so on to a large monument erected on a small eminence on the east side of the Kennebec road. Thence it passes through a dwelling house called Tachereau's, which was standing there at the time the line was run; so, by a tortuous course, it runs to the top of Sandy Stream Mountain; thence, inclining to the southwest, it runs over Hog Back the First, as shown in the maps; thence toward Hog Back the Second, which it leaves on the north side. Further on, at the head of Leech Lake, there is a stream which divides its waters and flows both into Canada and into the United States. The boundary has been made to run up that stream a short distance from the fork where the waters divide to a second fork; thence between the streams which unite to form that fork, and then to ascend again the dividing ridge. A monument has been erected at the fork first mentioned, where the waters divide.

As the boundary approaches the valley of Spider River it bends to the southeast, and, by a wide circuit over high and steep hills, it turns the head of Spider River; thence it bends to the northwest until it approaches within about 4 miles of Lake Megantic; thence it turns again south, having the valley of Arnolds River on the right and of Dead River on the left. It leaves Gasford Mountain in Canada, threads its way over very high ground between the head of Arnolds River and the tributaries of the Magalloway; inclines then to the north, so to the west, over very rocky, mountainous, and difficult country, leaving Gipps Peak in the United States, and turns by a sharp angle at Saddle Back to the south. After that it again inclines to the west, and then to the south, and again to the west, and passes the head of the Connecticut. About 3 miles and a half east of the head of the Connecticut there is a division of waters similar to that described near Leech Lake. The boundary runs down a stream from near its source to the fork where it divides, and then again follows the dividing ridge. The spot is noted on the map.

After the boundary has passed the head of the Connecticut it runs to the northwest, descending into very low, swampy ground between the heads of Indian Stream and the tributaries of the St. Francis. Thus it passes on, bending again to the south of west, over a high hill, to the source of Halls Stream.

Iron monuments have been erected at intervals along the highlands from the source of the Southwest Branch of the St. John to the source of Halls Stream, the position of each of which is shown upon the maps.

From the source of Halls Stream the boundary descends that river, dividing the islands, which are, however, merely unimportant alluvial deposits, in the manner indicated by the maps until it reaches the intersection of that stream by the line formerly run by Valentine and Collins as the forty-fifth degree of north latitude.

At that point a large monument has been erected on the right and a small one on the left bank of the stream. Monuments have also been erected along the bank of this stream, as indicated on the maps.

The line of Valentine and Collins was explored and found by the blazes still remaining in the original forest.

Upon cutting into those blazes it was seen that deep seated in the tree there was a scar, the surface of the original blaze, slightly decayed, and upon counting the rings (which indicate each year's growth of the tree) it was found that the blazes dated back to 1772, 1773, and 1774. The line of Valentine and Collins was run in 1771, 1772, 1773, and 1774. The coincidence of the dates of the blazes with those of the above line, confirmed by the testimony of the people of the country, satisfied the undersigned that the line they had found was that mentioned in the treaty. Along this portion of the boundary, which is known as the forty-fifth degree of Valentine and Collins, and which extends from Halls Stream to St. Regis, there are several interruptions to the blazes in those parts where clearings have been made, and there the authentic marks of the precise situation of the old line have been lost. In those cases the undersigned have drawn the boundary line straight from the original blazes on the one side of a clearing to the original blazes on the other side of the same clearing.

It can not be positively stated that the line as it has been traced through those clearings precisely coincides with the old line, but the undersigned believe that it does not differ materially from it; nor have they had the means of determining a nearer or a surer approximation.

Along this line, at every point of deflection, an iron monument has been erected; also at the crossing of rivers, lakes, and roads. Those which mark deflections are placed, as on the "north line," anglewise with the line; all the others are placed square with it. The maps show the position of each.

On the eastern shore of Lake Memphremagog an astronomical station was established, and on a large flat rock of granite, which happened to lie between the astronomical station and the boundary, was cut the following inscription:



Capt: Robinson. Ast: Station 422 feet north. Meridian Line. ——————————————-()————————————————

Boundary Line 595 feet south August, 1845.

British Boundary Commission

A mark was cut upon the stone, as indicated by the dot upon the meridian line above, from which these measurements were made.

At Rouses Point a monument of wrought stone was set up at the intersection of the boundary by the meridian of the transit instrument used there by Major Graham, and an inscription was cut upon it stating the latitude and longitude, the names of the observer and his assistant, the names of the commissioners, and the territories divided.

To mark the position of the instruments used at the following astronomical stations along the west line, two monuments within a few feet of each other have been erected at each station, and they have been placed on the boundary line due north or south of the instrument, as the case may have been.

The stations are: Lake Memphremagog, Richford, John McCoy's, Trout River.

The boundary along the west line, though very far from being a straight line, is generally about half a mile north of the true parallel of latitude 45 deg. from Halls Stream to Rouses Point. At about 28 miles west of Rouses Point it, however, crosses that parallel to the south until it reaches Chateaugay River, where it bends northward, and, crossing the parallel again about 4 miles east of St. Regis, it strikes the St. Lawrence 151 feet north of 45 deg.. At that point a large monument has been erected on the bank of the St. Lawrence. Two large monuments have also been erected, one on either side of the river Richelieu near Rouses Point.

No marks of the old line were to be found about St. Regis. It was therefore agreed to run a line due west from the last blaze which should be found in the woods on the east side of St. Regis. That blaze occurred about 1 mile east of the St. Regis River.

The maps, which exhibit the boundary on a scale of 4 inches to 1 statute mile, consist of 62 consecutive sheets of antiquarian paper as constructed by the British and of 61 as constructed by the American commission. A general map has also been constructed on a scale of 8 miles to 1 inch by the British and of 10 miles to 1 inch by the American commission, upon which the before-mentioned sheets are represented.

The following portions of the boundary have been laid down by the British commission, on detached maps, on a scale of 12 inches to 1 mile, which have been signed by both commissioners:

Grand Falls of the St. John, including the intersection of that river by the north line; islands of the St. John; the outlet of Lake Pohenagamook; the turning point of the boundary on the Northwest Branch of the St. John; the intersection of the Southwest Branch by the parallel of latitude 46 deg. 25'; the source of the Southwest Branch; the source of Halls Stream; the intersection of Halls Stream by the west line; Rouses Point; St. Regis; Derby.

But similar maps have not been prepared by the American commission, because during the interval between the finishing of the maps of the British commission and those of the American it was thought that the maps already constructed upon a scale of 4 inches to 1 mile represented the boundary with sufficient clearness and accuracy.

The astronomical observations were begun at the Grand Falls early in June, 1843, and were carried up the St. John River to the Northwest Branch by a chain of stations, which, together with the results obtained, are tabulated in the appendix accompanying this report.

From the valley of the St. John an astronomical connection was made with Quebec, and thence to Montreal, and so to Rouses Point. From Rouses Point a connection was obtained with Cambridge University, near Boston.

The astronomical stations on the west line were: Intersection of Halls Stream by the west line, Lake Memphremagog, Richford, Rouses Point, John McCoy's, Trout River, St. Regis.

Latitude was also obtained at an astronomical station established for the purpose at the head of the Connecticut.

Volumes containing the astronomical observations of both commissions are herewith submitted. From them it will be observed that the results for absolute longitude obtained by the British and American astronomers do not agree. It being a difference in no way affecting the survey of the boundary line, the undersigned do not feel called upon to attempt to reconcile it. The data upon which those results are based may be seen in the volumes of observations accompanying this report.

In the appendix will be found, in a tabular form, the following:

An abstract of the survey of the boundary along the north line; an abstract of the survey of the boundary along the southwest line; an abstract of the survey of the boundary along the south line; an abstract of the survey of the boundary along the highlands; an abstract of the survey of the boundary along the west line; the position of the monuments erected on the Southwest Branch of the St. John and on Halls Stream; the distribution of the islands of the St. John and the monuments on them; the guide lines and offsets run by each commission for the survey of the highlands; the azimuths of verification for the survey of the highlands; the latitudes and longitudes obtained from the astronomical observations; the comparative longitudes obtained, and the methods used for the purpose.

Upon comparing the maps of the two commissions it will be seen that the American commission numbers two monuments more than the British. Those are to be found, one on the "Fourth Island," in the river St. John, and the other on the highlands between the source of the Southwest Branch of the river St. John and the Kennebec road.

On the maps of the British commission representing the "west line" the name of the town of "Derby" has been improperly placed north of the line instead of south of it. Also, on the same maps the direction of Salmon River, near the western extremity of the "west line," has been incorrectly laid down from the boundary line northward. A direction has been given to it northeasterly instead of northwesterly.

The above two corrections the British commissioner is authorized to make on his maps after his return to England.

To avoid unnecessary delay in making their joint report, the undersigned have attached their signatures to the maps, although the lettering of some of the astronomical stations upon the maps of the American commission, as well as the alterations before mentioned in the maps of the British commission, are yet to be made; but in the maps of both the boundary has been laid down accurately and definitively, and the undersigned engage that it shall not be altered in any respect.

In conclusion the undersigned have the honor to report that the line of boundary described in the foregoing statement has been run, marked, and surveyed, and the accompanying maps faithfully constructed from that survey.

The undersigned take leave to add that the most perfect harmony has subsisted between the two commissions from first to last, and that no differences have arisen between the undersigned in the execution of the duties intrusted to them.

Signed and sealed in duplicate, at the city of Washington, this 28th day of June, A.D. 1847.

J.B. BUCKNALL ESTCOURT, [SEAL.] Lieutenant-Colonel, Her Britannic Majesty's Commissioner.

ALBERT SMITH, [SEAL.] United States Commissioner.

NOTE.—The astronomical computations of the American commission not being completed, and it being unnecessary to defer the signing of the report on that account, the American commissioner engages to transmit them, with any other papers or tables not yet finished, as soon as they shall be so, to the British commissioner, through the American minister resident in London, to whom, upon delivery of the documents, the British commissioner will give a receipt, to be transmitted to the American commissioner.

J. B. BUCKNALL ESTCOURT, Lieutenant-Colonel, H.B.M. Commissioner of Boundary.

ALBERT SMITH, United States Commissioner.



WASHINGTON, August 18, 1842.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to its ratification, a treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation with the Republic of Texas, negotiated at the seat of Government of the United States between the Secretary of State, duly empowered for that purpose, and the charge d'affaires of that Republic.

In forming the first commercial treaty between the two Governments an anxious desire has been felt to introduce such provisions as should promote the interests of both countries. The immediate proximity of Texas to the United States and the consequent facility of intercourse, the nature of its principal agricultural production, and the relations which both countries bear to several large rivers which are boundaries between them, and which in some part of their course run within the territories of both, have caused peculiarities of condition and interests which it has been necessary to guard.

The treaty provides that Texas shall enjoy a right of deposit for such of her productions as may be introduced into the United States for exportation, but upon the condition that the Executive of the United States may prescribe such regulations as may be necessary for the proper enjoyment of the privilege within our territory. It was thought no more than reasonable to grant this facility to the trade of Texas, under such conditions as seem best calculated to guard against abuse or inconvenience.

The treaty further provides that raw cotton may be imported from either country into the other free of duties. In general it is not wise to enter into treaty stipulations respecting duties of import; they are usually much better left to the operation of general laws. But there are circumstances existing in this case which have been thought to justify a departure from the general rule, and the addition of it to the number of instances, not large, in which regulations of duties of imports have been made the subject of national compact.

The United States consume large quantities of raw cotton, but they are exporters of the article to a still greater extent. Texas, for the present at least, exports her whole crop. These exportations are, in general, to the same foreign markets, and it is supposed to be of no considerable importance to the American producer whether he meets the Texan product at home or abroad.

On the other hand, it is thought that a useful commercial intercourse would be promoted in several ways by receiving the raw cotton of Texas at once into the United States free of duty. The tendency of such a measure is to bring to the United States, in the first instance, Texan cotton ultimately destined to European markets. The natural effect of this, it is supposed, will be to increase the business of the cities of the United States to the extent of this importation and exportation, and to secure a further degree of employment to the navigation of the country. But these are by no means all the benefits which may be reasonably expected from the arrangement. Texas, at least for a considerable time to come, must import all the manufactured articles and much of the supplies and provisions necessary for her use and consumption. These commodities she will be likely to obtain, if to be had, in the markets of the country in which she disposes of her main annual product. The manufactures of the North and East, therefore, and the grain and provisions of the Western States are likely to find in Texas a demand, increased by whatever augments intercourse between the two countries, and especially by whatever tends to give attraction to the cities of the United States as marts for the sale of her great and principal article of export.

As a security, however, against unforeseen results or occurrences, it has been thought advisable to give this article of the treaty a limitation of five years.

JOHN TYLER.



WASHINGTON, August 23, 1842.

To the Senate of the United States:

A resolution of the Senate of the 21st of June last requested the President to communicate to the Senate, so far as he might deem it compatible with the public interests, what measures, if any, had been taken to obtain the recognition by the Mexican Government of such claims of American citizens as were laid before the late joint commission, but were not finally acted on by it, and the satisfaction of such claims as were admitted by said commission; also whether any facts had come to his knowledge calculated to induce a belief that any such claims had been rejected in consequence of the evidence thereof having been withheld by the Mexican Government, its officers or agents, and any other information which he might deem it expedient to communicate relative to said claims; and another resolution of the 6th instant requested the President, so far as he might deem it compatible with the public service, to communicate to the Senate the measures taken to obtain the performance of the stipulations contained in the convention with Mexico in relation to the awards made by the commissioners and umpire under said convention.

In the present state of the correspondence and of the relations between the two Governments on these important subjects it is not deemed consistent with the public interest to communicate the information requested. The business engages earnest attention, and will be made the subject of a full communication to Congress at the earliest practicable period.

JOHN TYLER.



WASHINGTON, August 24, 1842.

To the Senate of the United States:

On the 15th day of April, 1842, in virtue of the sentence of a court-martial regularly convened under orders from the Secretary of the Navy, which received my approval, John H. Clack, who was a captain in the Navy, was dismissed the service. Since the confirmation of that sentence a letter has been addressed by Mr. Paulding, late Secretary of the Navy, to Captain Clack, which leads to the belief that he had analyzed the charges made against Captain Clack, and for reasons which appeared to him satisfactory and which, according to his letter, he indorsed on the charges, disposed of the case by refusing to submit it to a court-martial.

Notwithstanding a diligent search has been made for this document, none such can be found; but the only paper in the office having reference to this subject is a letter addressed by Mr. Paulding to Lieutenant Buchanan, a copy of which, together with the original of that of Mr. P. to Captain C., is herewith communicated. I felt it, however, every way due to the high character of Mr. Paulding to consider the fact stated by him to be as well sustained by his declaration to that effect as if the record was found, and as the court-martial would not have been ordered by the present Secretary with the knowledge of the fact stated by Mr. Paulding, since it would have been improper to have reopened a case once finally disposed of, I have felt that it was alike due to the general service of the Navy as to Mr. Clack to nominate him for reappointment to the service.

I therefore nominate John H. Clack to be a captain in the Navy of the United States.

JOHN TYLER.



WASHINGTON, August 25, 1842.

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 11th of June last, upon the subject of claims of citizens of the United States against the Government of the Mexican Republic, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and a copy of the report of the commissioners on the part of the United States under the late convention between the United States and that Republic.

JOHN TYLER.



VETO MESSAGES.

WASHINGTON, June 29, 1842.

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

I return the bill, which originated in the House of Representatives, entitled "An act to extend for a limited period the present laws for laying and collecting duties on imports," with the following objections:

It suspends—in other words, abrogates for the time—the provision of the act of 1833, commonly called the "compromise act." The only ground on which this departure from the solemn adjustment of a great and agitating question seems to have been regarded as expedient is the alleged necessity of establishing by legislative enactments rules and regulations for assessing the duties to be levied on imports after the 30th June according to the home valuation, and yet the bill expressly provides that "if before the 1st of August there be no further legislation upon the subject, the laws for laying and collecting duties shall be the same as though this act had not been passed." In other words, that the act of 1833, imperfect as it is considered, shall in that case continue to be and to be executed under such rules and regulations as previous statutes had prescribed or had enabled the executive department to prescribe for that purpose, leaving the supposed chasm in the revenue laws just as it was before.

I am certainly far from being disposed to deny that additional legislation upon the subject is very desirable; on the contrary, the necessity, as well as difficulty, of establishing uniformity in the appraisements to be made in conformity with the true intention of that act was brought to the notice of Congress in my message to Congress at the opening of its present session. But however sensible I may be of the embarrassments to which the Executive, in the absence of all aid from the superior wisdom of the Legislature, will be liable in the enforcement of the existing laws, I have not, with the sincerest wish to acquiesce in its expressed will, been able to persuade myself that the exigency of the occasion is so great as to justify me in signing the bill in question with my present views of its character and effects. The existing laws, as I am advised, are sufficient to authorize and enable the collecting officers, under the directions of the Secretary of the Treasury, to levy the duties imposed by the act of 1833.

That act was passed under peculiar circumstances, to which it is not necessary that I should do more than barely allude. Whatever maybe, in theory, its character, I have always regarded it as importing the highest moral obligation. It has now existed for nine years unchanged in any essential particular, with as general acquiescence, it is believed, of the whole country as that country has ever manifested for any of her wisely established institutions. It has insured to it the repose which always flows from truly wise and moderate counsels—a repose the more striking because of the long and angry agitations which preceded it. This salutary law proclaims in express terms the principle which, while it led to the abandonment of a scheme of indirect taxation founded on a false basis and pushed to dangerous excess, justifies any enlargement of duties that may be called for by the real exigencies of the public service. It provides "that duties shall be laid for the purpose of raising such revenue as may be necessary to an economical administration of the Government." It is therefore in the power of Congress to lay duties as high as its discretion may dictate for the necessary uses of the Government without infringing upon the objects of the act of 1833. I do not doubt that the exigencies of the Government do require an increase of the tariff of duties above 20 per cent, and I as little doubt that Congress may, above as well as below that rate, so discriminate as to give incidental protection to manufacturing industry, thus to make the burdens which it is compelled to impose upon the people for the purposes of Government productive of a double benefit. This most of the reasonable opponents of protective duties seem willing to concede, and, if we may judge from the manifestations of public opinion in all quarters, this is all that the manufacturing interests really require. I am happy in the persuasion that this double object can be most easily and effectually accomplished at the present juncture without any departure from the spirit and principle of the statute in question. The manufacturing classes have now an opportunity which may never occur again of permanently identifying their interests with those of the whole country, and making them, in the highest sense of the term, a national concern. The moment is propitious to the interests of the whole country in the introduction of harmony among all its parts and all its several interests. The same rate of imposts, and no more, as will most surely reestablish the public credit will secure to the manufacturer all the protection he ought to desire, with every prospect of permanence and stability which the hearty acquiescence of the whole country on a reasonable system can hold out to him.

But of this universal acquiescence, and the harmony and confidence and the many other benefits that will certainly result from it, I regard the suspension of the law for distributing the proceeds of the sales of the public lands as an indispensable condition. This measure is, in my judgment, called for by a large number, if not a great majority, of the people of the United States; by the state of the public credit and finances; by the critical posture of our various foreign relations; and, above all, by that most sacred of all duties—public faith. The act of September last, which provides for the distribution, couples it inseparably with the condition that it shall cease—first, in case of war; second, as soon and so long as the rate of duties shall for any reason whatever be raised above 20 per cent. Nothing can be more clear, express, or imperative than this language. It is in vain to allege that a deficit in the Treasury was known to exist and that means were taken to supply this deficit by loan when the act was passed. It is true that a loan was authorized at the same session during which the distribution law was passed, but the most sanguine of the friends of the two measures entertained no doubt but that the loan would be eagerly sought after and taken up by capitalists and speedily reimbursed by a country destined, as they hoped, soon to enjoy an overflowing prosperity. The very terms of the loan, making it redeemable in three years, demonstrate this beyond all cavil. Who at the time foresaw or imagined the possibility of the present real state of things, when a nation that has paid off her whole debt since the last peace, while all the other great powers have been increasing theirs, and whose resources, already so great, are yet but in the infancy of their development, should be compelled to haggle in the money market for a paltry sum not equal to one year's revenue upon her economical system? If the distribution law is to be indefinitely suspended, according not only to its own terms, but by universal consent, in the case of war, wherein are the actual exigencies of the country or the moral obligation to provide for them less under present circumstances than they could be were we actually involved in war? It appears to me to be the indispensable duty of all concerned in the administration of public affairs to see that a state of things so humiliating and so perilous should not last a moment longer than is absolutely unavoidable. Much less excusable should we be in parting with any portion of our available means, at least until the demands of the Treasury are fully supplied. But besides the urgency of such considerations, the fact is undeniable that the distribution act could not have become a law without the guaranty in the proviso of the act itself.

This connection, thus meant to be inseparable, is severed by the bill presented to me. The bill violates the principle of the acts of 1833 and September, 1841, by suspending the first and rendering for a time the last inoperative. Duties above 20 per cent are proposed to be levied, and yet the proviso in the distribution act is disregarded. The proceeds of the sales are to be distributed on the 1st of August, so that, while the duties proposed to be enacted exceed 20 per cent, no suspension of the distribution to the States is permitted to take place. To abandon the principle for a month is to open the way for its total abandonment. If such is not meant, why postpone at all? Why not let the distribution take place on the 1st of July if the law so directs (which, however, is regarded as questionable)? But why not have limited the provision to that effect? Is it for the accommodation of the Treasury? I see no reason to believe that the Treasury will be in better condition to meet the payment on the 1st of August than on the 1st of July.

The bill assumes that a distribution of the proceeds of the public lands is, by existing laws, to be made on the 1st day of July, 1842, notwithstanding there has been an imposition of duties on imports exceeding 20 per cent up to that day, and directs it to be made on the 1st of August next. It seems to me very clear that this conclusion is equally erroneous and dangerous, as it would divert from the Treasury a fund sacredly pledged for the general purposes of the Government in the event of a rate of duty above 20 per cent being found necessary for an economical administration of the Government.

The bill under consideration is designed only as a temporary measure; and thus a temporary measure, passed merely for the convenience of Congress, is made to affect the vital principle of an important act. If the proviso of the act of September, 1841, can be suspended for the whole period of a temporary law, why not for the whole period of a permanent law? In fact, a doubt may be well entertained, according to strict legal rules, whether the condition, having been thus expressly suspended by this bill and rendered inapplicable to a case where it would otherwise have clearly applied, will not be considered as ever after satisfied and gone. Without expressing any decided opinion on this point, I see enough in it to justify me in adhering to the law as it stands in preference to subjecting a condition so vitally affecting the peace of the country, and so solemnly enacted at a momentous crisis, and so steadfastly adhered to ever since, and so replete, if adhered to, with good to every interest of the country, to doubtful or captious interpretation.

In discharging the high duties thus imposed on me by the Constitution I repeat to the House my entire willingness to cooperate in all financial measures, constitutional and proper, which in its wisdom it may judge necessary and proper to reestablish the credit of the Government. I believe that the proceeds of the sales of the public lands being restored to the Treasury—or, more properly speaking, the proviso of the act of September, 1841, being permitted to remain in full force—a tariff of duties may easily be adjusted, which, while it will yield a revenue sufficient to maintain the Government in vigor by restoring its credit, will afford ample protection and infuse a new life into all our manufacturing establishments. The condition of the country calls for such legislation, and it will afford me the most sincere pleasure to cooperate in it.

JOHN TYLER.



WASHINGTON, August 9, 1842.

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

It is with unfeigned regret that I find myself under the necessity of returning to the House of Representatives with my objections a bill entitled "An act to provide revenue from imports, and to change and modify existing laws imposing duties on imports, and for other purposes." Nothing can be more painful to any individual called upon to perform the Chief Executive duties under our limited Constitution than to be constrained to withhold his assent from an important measure adopted by the Legislature. Yet he would neither fulfill the high purposes of his station nor consult the true interests or the solemn will of the people—the common constituents of both branches of the Government—by yielding his well-considered, most deeply fixed, and repeatedly declared opinions on matters of great public concernment to those of a coordinate department without requesting that department seriously to reexamine the subject of their difference. The exercise of some independence of judgment in regard to all acts of legislation is plainly implied in the responsibility of approving them. At all times a duty, it becomes a peculiarly solemn and imperative one when the subjects passed upon by Congress happen to involve, as in the present instance, the most momentous issues, to affect variously the various parts of a great country, and to have given rise in all quarters to such a conflict of opinion as to render it impossible to conjecture with any certainty on which side the majority really is. Surely if the pause for reflection intended by the wise authors of the Constitution by referring the subject back to Congress for reconsideration be ever expedient and necessary it is precisely such a case as the present.

On the subject of distributing the proceeds of the sales of the public lands in the existing state of the finances it has been my duty to make known my settled convictions on various occasions during the present session of Congress. At the opening of the extra session, upward of twelve months ago, sharing fully in the general hope of returning prosperity and credit, I recommended such a distribution, but that recommendation was even then expressly coupled with the condition that the duties on imports should not exceed the rate of 20 per cent provided by the compromise act of 1833. These hopes were not a little encouraged and these views strengthened by the report of Mr. Ewing, then Secretary of the Treasury, which was shortly thereafter laid before Congress, in which he recommended the imposition of duties at the rate of 20 per cent ad valorem on all free articles, with specified exceptions, and stated "if this measure be adopted there will be received in the Treasury from customs in the last quarter of the present year (1841) $5,300,000; in all of the year 1842, about $22,500,000; and in the year 1843, after the final reduction under the act of March 2, 1833, about $20,800,000;" and adds:

It is believed that after the heavy expenditures required by the public service in the present year shall have been provided for, the revenues which will accrue from that or a nearly approximate rate of duty will be sufficient to defray the expenses of the Government and leave a surplus to be annually applied to the gradual payment of the national debt, leaving the proceeds of the public lands to be disposed of as Congress shall see fit.

I was most happy that Congress at the time seemed entirely to concur in the recommendations of the Executive, and, anticipating the correctness of the Secretary's conclusions, and in view of an actual surplus, passed the distribution act of the 4th September last, wisely limiting its operation by two conditions having reference, both of them, to a possible state of the Treasury different from that which had been anticipated by the Secretary of the Treasury and to the paramount necessities of the public service. It ordained that "if at any time during the existence of that act there should be an imposition of duties on imports inconsistent with the provision of the act of the 2d March, 1833, and beyond the rate of duties fixed by that act, to wit, 20 per cent on the value of such imports or any of them, then the distribution should be suspended, and should continue so suspended until that cause should be removed," By a previous clause it had, in a like spirit of wise and cautious patriotism, provided for another case, in which all are even now agreed, that the proceeds of the sales of the public lands should be used for the defense of the country. It was enacted that the act should continue and be in force until otherwise provided by law, unless the United States should become involved in war with any foreign power, in which event, from the commencement of hostilities, the act should be suspended until the cessation of hostilities.

Not long after the opening of the present session of Congress the unprecedented and extraordinary difficulties that have recently embarrassed the finances of the country began to assume a serious aspect. It soon became quite evident that the hopes under which the act of 4th September was passed, and which alone justified it in the eyes either of Congress who imposed or of the Executive who approved, the first of the two conditions just recited were not destined to be fulfilled. Under the pressure, therefore, of the embarrassments which had thus unexpectedly arisen it appeared to me that the course to be pursued had been clearly marked out for the Government by that act itself. The condition contemplated in it as requiring a suspension of its operation had occurred. It became necessary in the opinions of all to raise the rate of duties upon imports above 20 per cent; and with a view both to provide available means to meet present exigencies and to lay the foundation for a successful negotiation of a loan, I felt it incumbent on me to urge upon Congress to raise the duties accordingly, imposing them in a spirit of a wise discrimination for the twofold object of affording ample revenue for the Government and incidental protection to the various branches of domestic industry. I also pressed, in the most emphatic but respectful language I could employ, the necessity of making the land sales available to the Treasury, as the basis of public credit. I did not think that I could stand excused, much less justified, before the people of the United States, nor could I reconcile it to myself to recommend the imposition of additional taxes upon them without at the same time urging the employment of all the legitimate means of the Government toward satisfying its wants. These opinions were communicated in advance of any definitive action of Congress on the subject either of the tariff or land sales, under a high sense of public duty and in compliance with an express injunction of the Constitution, so that if a collision, extremely to be deprecated, as such collisions always are, has seemingly arisen between the executive and legislative branches of the Government, it has assuredly not been owing to any capricious interference or to any want of a plain and frank declaration of opinion on the part of the former. Congress differed in its views with those of the Executive, as it had undoubtedly a right to do, and passed a bill virtually for a time repealing the proviso of the act of the 4th September, 1841. The bill was returned to the House in which it originated with my objections to its becoming a law. With a view to prevent, if possible, an open disagreement of opinion on a point so important, I took occasion to declare that I regarded it as an indispensable prerequisite to an increase of duties above 20 per cent that the act of the 4th September should remain unrepealed in its provisions. My reasons for that opinion were elaborately set forth in the message which accompanied the return of the bill, which no constitutional majority appears to have been found for passing into a law.

The bill which is now before me proposes in its twenty-seventh section the total repeal of one of the provisos in the act of September, and, while it increases the duties above 20 per cent, directs an unconditional distribution of the land proceeds. I am therefore subjected a second time in the period of a few days to the necessity of either giving my approval to a measure which, in my deliberate judgment, is in conflict with great public interests or of returning it to the House in which it originated with my objections. With all my anxiety for the passage of a law which would replenish an exhausted Treasury and furnish a sound and healthy encouragement to mechanical industry, I can not consent to do so at the sacrifice of the peace and harmony of the country and the clearest convictions of public duty.

For some of the reasons which have brought me to this conclusion I refer to my previous messages to Congress, and briefly subjoin the following:

1. The bill unites two subjects which, so far from having any affinity to one another, are wholly incongruous in their character. It is both a revenue and an appropriation bill. It thus imposes on the Executive, in the first place, the necessity of either approving that which he would reject or rejecting that which he might otherwise approve. This is a species of constraint to which the judgment of the Executive ought not, in my opinion, to be subjected. But that is not my only objection to the act in its present form. The union of subjects wholly dissimilar in their character in the same bill, if it grew into a practice, would not fail to lead to consequences destructive of all wise and conscientious legislation. Various measures, each agreeable only to a small minority, might by being thus united—and the more the greater chance of success—lead to the passing of laws of which no single provision could if standing alone command a majority in its favor.

2. While the Treasury is in a state of extreme embarrassment, requiring every dollar which it can make available, and when the Government has not only to lay additional taxes, but to borrow money to meet pressing demands, the bill proposes to give away a fruitful source of revenue—which is the same thing as raising money by loan and taxation—not to meet the wants of the Government, but for distribution—a proceeding which I must regard as highly impolitic, if not unconstitutional.

A brief review of the present condition of the public finances will serve to illustrate the true condition of the Treasury and exhibit its actual necessities:

On the 5th of August (Friday last) there was in the Treasury, in round numbers $2,150,000

Necessary to be retained to meet trust funds $360,000 Interest on public debt due in October 80,000 To redeem Treasury notes and pay the interest 100,000 Land distribution under the act of the 4th of September, 1841 640,000 1,180,000 Leaving an available amount of 970,000

The Navy Department had drawn requisitions on the Treasury at that time to meet debts actually due, among which are bills under protest for $1,414,000, thus leaving an actual deficit of $444,000.

There was on hand about $100,000 of unissued Treasury notes, assisted by the accruing revenue (amounting to about $150,000 per week, exclusive of receipts on unpaid bonds), to meet requisitions for the Army and the demands of the civil list.

The withdrawal of the sum of $640,000 to be distributed among the States, so soon as the statements and accounts can be made up and completed, by virtue of the provisions of the act of the 4th of September last (of which nearly a moiety goes to a few States, and only about $383,000 is to be divided among all the States), while it adds materially to the embarrassments of the Treasury, affords to the States no decided relief.

No immediate relief from this state of things is anticipated unless (what would most deeply be deplored) the Government could be reconciled to the negotiation of loans already authorized by law at a rate of discount ruinous in itself and calculated most seriously to affect the public credit. So great is the depression of trade that even if the present bill were to become a law and prove to be productive some time would elapse before sufficient supplies would flow into the Treasury, while in the meantime its embarrassments would be continually augmented by the semiannual distribution of the land proceeds.

Indeed, there is but too much ground to apprehend that even if this bill were permitted to become a law—alienating, as it does, the proceeds of the land sales—an actual deficit in the Treasury would occur, which would more than probably involve the necessity of a resort to direct taxation.

Let it be also remarked that $5,500,000 of the public debt becomes redeemable in about two years and a half, which at any sacrifice must be met, while the Treasury is always liable to demands for the payment of outstanding Treasury notes. Such is the gloomy picture which our financial department now presents, and which calls for the exercise of a rigid economy in the public expenditures and the rendering available of all the means within the control of the Government. I most respectfully submit whether this is a time to give away the proceeds of the land sales when the public lands constitute a fund which of all others may be made most useful in sustaining the public credit. Can the Government be generous and munificent to others when every dollar it can command is necessary to supply its own wants? And if Congress would not hesitate to suffer the provisions of the act of 4th September last to remain unrepealed in case the country was involved in war, is not the necessity for such a course now just as imperative as it would be then?

3. A third objection remains to be urged, which would be sufficient in itself to induce me to return the bill to the House with my objections. By uniting two subjects so incongruous as tariff and distribution it inevitably makes the fate of the one dependent upon that of the other in future contests of party. Can anything be more fatal to the merchant or manufacturer than such an alliance? What they most of all require is a system of moderate duties so arranged as to withdraw the tariff question, as far as possible, completely from the arena of political contention. Their chief want is permanency and stability. Such an increase of the tariff I believe to be necessary in order to meet the economical expenditures of Government. Such an increase, made in the spirit of moderation and judicious discrimination, would, I have no doubt, be entirely satisfactory to the great majority of the American people. In the way of accomplishing a measure so salutary and so imperatively demanded by every public interest, the legislative department will meet with a cordial cooperation on the part of the Executive. This is all that the manufacturer can desire, and it would be a burden readily borne by the people. But I can not too earnestly repeat that in order to be beneficial it must be permanent, and in order to be permanent it must command general acquiescence. But can such permanency be justly hoped for if the tariff question be coupled with that of distribution, as to which a serious conflict of opinion exists among the States and the people, and which enlists in its support a bare majority, if, indeed, there be a majority, of the two Houses of Congress? What permanency or stability can attach to a measure which, warring upon itself, gives away a fruitful source of revenue at the moment it proposes a large increase of taxes on the people? Is the manufacturer prepared to stake himself and his interests upon such an issue?

I know that it is urged (but most erroneously, in my opinion) that instability is just as apt to be produced by retaining the public lands as a source of revenue as from any other cause, and this is ascribed to a constant fluctuation, as it is said, in the amount of sales. If there were anything in this objection, it equally applies to every imposition of duties on imports. The amount of revenue annually derived from duties is constantly liable to change. The regulations of foreign governments, the varying productiveness of other countries, periods of excitement in trade, and a great variety of other circumstances are constantly arising to affect the state of commerce, foreign and domestic, and, of consequence, the revenue levied upon it. The sales of the public domain in ordinary times are regulated by fixed laws which have their basis in a demand increasing only in the ratio of the increase of population. In recurring to the statistics connected with this subject it will be perceived that for a period of ten years preceding 1834 the average amount of land sales did not exceed $2,000,000. For the increase which took place in 1834, 1835, and 1836 we are to look to that peculiar condition of the country which grew out of one of the most extraordinary excitements in business and speculation that has ever occurred in the history of commerce and currency. It was the fruit of a wild spirit of adventure engendered by a vicious system of credits, under the evils of which the country is still laboring, and which it is fondly hoped will not soon recur. Considering the vast amount of investments made by private individuals in the public lands during those three years, and which equaled $43,000,000 (equal to more than twenty years' purchase), taking the average of sales of the ten preceding years, it may be safely asserted that the result of the public-land sales can hold out nothing to alarm the manufacturer with the idea of instability in the revenues and consequently in the course of the Government.

Under what appears to me, therefore, the soundest considerations of public policy, and in view of the interests of every branch of domestic industry, I return you the bill with these my objections to its becoming a law.

I take occasion emphatically to repeat my anxious desire to cooperate with Congress in the passing of a law which, while it shall assist in supplying the wants of the Treasury and reestablish public credit, shall afford to the manufacturing interests of the country all the incidental protection they require.

After all, the effect of what I do is substantially to call on Congress to reconsider the subject. If on such reconsideration a majority of two-thirds of both Houses should be in favor of this measure, it will become a law notwithstanding my objections. In a case of clear and manifest error on the part of the President the presumption of the Constitution is that such majorities will be found. Should they be so found in this case, having conscientiously discharged my own duty I shall cheerfully acquiesce in the result.

JOHN TYLER.



PROTEST.[79]

[Footnote 79: The House of Representatives ordered that it be not entered on the Journal.]

WASHINGTON, August 30, 1842.

To the House of Representatives:

By the Constitution of the United States it is provided that "every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall before it become a law be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large upon the Journal and proceed to reconsider it."

In strict compliance with the positive obligation thus imposed upon me by the Constitution, not having been able to bring myself to approve a bill which originated in the House of Representatives entitled "An act to provide revenue from imports, and to change and modify existing laws imposing duties on imports, and for other purposes," I returned the same to the House with my objections to its becoming a law. These objections, which had entirely satisfied my own mind of the great impolicy, if not unconstitutionality, of the measure, were presented in the most respectful and even deferential terms. I would not have been so far forgetful of what was due from one department of the Government to another as to have intentionally employed in my official intercourse with the House any language that could be in the slightest degree offensive to those to whom it was addressed. If in assigning my objections to the bill I had so far forgotten what was due to the House of Representatives as to impugn its motives in passing the bill, I should owe, not only to that House, but to the country, the most profound apology. Such departure from propriety is, however, not complained of in any proceeding which the House has adopted. It has, on the contrary, been expressly made a subject of remark, and almost of complaint, that the language in which my dissent was couched was studiously guarded and cautious.

Such being the character of the official communication in question, I confess I was wholly unprepared for the course which has been pursued in regard to it. In the exercise of its power to regulate its own proceedings the House for the first time, it is believed, in the history of the Government thought proper to refer the message to a select committee of its own body for the purpose, as my respect for the House would have compelled me to infer, of deliberately weighing the objections urged against the bill by the Executive with a view to its own judgment upon the question of the final adoption or rejection of the measure.

Of the temper and feelings in relation to myself of some of the members selected for the performance of this duty I have nothing to say. That was a matter entirely within the discretion of the House of Representatives. But that committee, taking a different view of its duty from that which I should have supposed had led to its creation, instead of confining itself to the objections urged against the bill availed itself of the occasion formally to arraign the motives of the President for others of his acts since his induction into office. In the absence of all proof and, as I am bound to declare, against all law or precedent in parliamentary proceedings, and at the same time in a manner which it would be difficult to reconcile with the comity hitherto sacredly observed in the intercourse between independent and coordinate departments of the Government, it has assailed my whole official conduct without the shadow of a pretext for such assault, and, stopping short of impeachment, has charged me, nevertheless, with offenses declared to deserve impeachment.

Had the extraordinary report which the committee thus made to the House been permitted to remain without the sanction of the latter, I should not have uttered a regret or complaint upon the subject. But unaccompanied as it is by any particle of testimony to support the charges it contains, without a deliberate examination, almost without any discussion, the House of Representatives has been pleased to adopt it as its own, and thereby to become my accuser before the country and before the world. The high character of such an accuser, the gravity of the charges which have been made, and the judgment pronounced against me by the adoption of the report upon a distinct and separate vote of the House leave me no alternative but to enter my solemn protest against this proceeding as unjust to myself as a man, as an invasion of my constitutional powers as Chief Magistrate of the American people, and as a violation in my person of rights secured to every citizen by the laws and the Constitution. That Constitution has intrusted to the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment. Such impeachment is required to be tried before the most august tribunal known to our institutions. The Senate of the United States, composed of the representatives of the sovereignty of the States, is converted into a hall of justice, and in order to insure the strictest observance of the rules of evidence and of legal procedure the Chief Justice of the United States, the highest judicial functionary of the land, is required to preside over its deliberations. In the presence of such a judicatory the voice of faction is presumed to be silent, and the sentence of guilt or innocence is pronounced under the most solemn sanctions of religion, of honor, and of law. To such a tribunal does the Constitution authorize the House of Representatives to carry up its accusations against any chief of the executive department whom it may believe to be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Before that tribunal the accused is confronted with his accusers, and may demand the privilege, which the justice of the common law secures to the humblest citizen, of a full, patient, and impartial inquiry into the facts, upon the testimony of witnesses rigidly cross-examined and deposing in the face of day. If such a proceeding had been adopted toward me, unjust as I should certainly have regarded it, I should, I trust, have met with a becoming constancy a trial as painful as it would have been undeserved. I would have manifested by a profound submission to the laws of my country my perfect faith in her justice, and, relying on the purity of my motives and the rectitude of my conduct, should have looked forward with confidence to a triumphant refutation in the presence of that country and by the solemn judgment of such a tribunal not only of whatever charges might have been formally preferred against me, but of all the calumnies of which I have hitherto been the unresisting victim. As it is, I have been accused without evidence and condemned without a hearing. As far as such proceedings can accomplish it, I am deprived of public confidence in the administration of the Government and denied even the boast of a good name—a name transmitted to me from a patriot father, prized as my proudest inheritance, and carefully preserved for those who are to come after me as the most precious of all earthly possessions. I am not only subjected to imputations affecting my character as an individual, but am charged with offenses against the country so grave and so heinous as to deserve public disgrace and disfranchisement. I am charged with violating pledges which I never gave, and, because I execute what I believe to be the law, with usurping powers not conferred by law, and, above all, with using the powers conferred upon the President by the Constitution from corrupt motives and for unwarrantable ends. And these charges are made without any particle of evidence to sustain them, and, as I solemnly affirm, without any foundation in truth.

Why is a proceeding of this sort adopted at this time? Is the occasion for it found in the fact that having been elected to the second office under the Constitution by the free and voluntary suffrages of the people, I have succeeded to the first according to the express provisions of the fundamental law of the same people? It is true that the succession of the Vice-President to the Chief Magistracy has never occurred before and that all prudent and patriotic minds have looked on this new trial of the wisdom and stability of our institutions with a somewhat anxious concern. I have been made to feel too sensibly the difficulties of my unprecedented position not to know all that is intended to be conveyed in the reproach cast upon a President without a party. But I found myself placed in this most responsible station by no usurpation or contrivance of my own. I was called to it, under Providence, by the supreme law of the land and the deliberately declared will of the people. It is by these that I have been clothed with the high powers which they have seen fit to confide to their Chief Executive and been charged with the solemn responsibility under which those powers are to be exercised. It is to them that I hold myself answerable as a moral agent for a free and conscientious discharge of the duties which they have imposed upon me. It is not as an individual merely that I am now called upon to resist the encroachments of unconstitutional power. I represent the executive authority of the people of the United States, and it is in their name, whose mere agent and servant I am, and whose will declared in their fundamental law I dare not, even were I inclined, to disobey, that I protest against every attempt to break down the undoubted constitutional power of this department without a solemn amendment of that fundamental law.

I am determined to uphold the Constitution in this as in other respects to the utmost of my ability and in defiance of all personal consequences. What may happen to an individual is of little importance, but the Constitution of the country, or any one of its great and clear principles and provisions, is too sacred to be surrendered under any circumstances whatever by those who are charged with its protection and defense. Least of all should he be held guiltless who, placed at the head of one of the great departments of the Government, should shrink from the exercise of its unquestionable authority on the most important occasions and should consent without a struggle to efface all the barriers so carefully erected by the people to control and circumscribe the powers confided to their various agents. It may be desirable, as the majority of the House of Representatives has declared it is, that no such checks upon the will of the Legislature should be suffered to continue. This is a matter for the people and States to decide, but until they shall have decided it I shall feel myself bound to execute, without fear or favor, the law as it has been written by our predecessors.

I protest against this whole proceeding of the House of Representatives as ex parte and extrajudicial. I protest against it as subversive of the common right of all citizens to be condemned only upon a fair and impartial trial, according to law and evidence, before the country. I protest against it as destructive of all the comity of intercourse between the departments of this Government, and destined sooner or later to lead to conflicts fatal to the peace of the country and the integrity of the Constitution. I protest against it in the name of that Constitution which is not only my own shield of protection and defense, but that of every American citizen. I protest against it in the name of the people, by whose will I stand where I do, by whose authority I exercised the power which I am charged with having usurped, and to whom I am responsible for a firm and faithful discharge according to my own convictions of duty of the high stewardship confided to me by them. I protest against it in the name of all regulated liberty and all limited government as a proceeding tending to the utter destruction of the checks and balances of the Constitution and the accumulating in the hands of the House of Representatives, or a bare majority of Congress for the time being, an uncontrolled and despotic power. And I respectfully ask that this my protest may be entered upon the Journal of the House of Representatives as a solemn and formal declaration for all time to come against the injustice and unconstitutionality of such a proceeding.

JOHN TYLER.



SECOND ANNUAL MESSAGE.

WASHINGTON, December 6, 1842.

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:

We have continued reason to express our profound gratitude to the Great Creator of All Things for numberless benefits conferred upon us as a people. Blessed with genial seasons, the husbandman has his garners filled with abundance, and the necessaries of life, not to speak of its luxuries, abound in every direction. While in some other nations steady and industrious labor can hardly find the means of subsistence, the greatest evil which we have to encounter is a surplus of production beyond the home demand, which seeks, and with difficulty finds, a partial market in other regions. The health of the country, with partial exceptions, has for the past year been well preserved, and under their free and wise institutions the United States are rapidly advancing toward the consummation of the high destiny which an overruling Providence seems to have marked out for them. Exempt from domestic convulsion and at peace with all the world, we are left free to consult as to the best means of securing and advancing the happiness of the people. Such are the circumstances under which you now assemble in your respective chambers and which should lead us to unite in praise and thanksgiving to that great Being who made us and who preserves us as a nation.

I congratulate you, fellow-citizens, on the happy change in the aspect of our foreign affairs since my last annual message. Causes of complaint at that time existed between the United States and Great Britain which, attended by irritating circumstances, threatened most seriously the public peace. The difficulty of adjusting amicably the questions at issue between the two countries was in no small degree augmented by the lapse of time since they had their origin. The opinions entertained by the Executive on several of the leading topics in dispute were frankly set forth in the message at the opening of your late session. The appointment of a special minister by Great Britain to the United States with power to negotiate upon most of the points of difference indicated a desire on her part amicably to adjust them, and that minister was met by the Executive in the same spirit which had dictated his mission. The treaty consequent thereon having been duly ratified by the two Governments, a copy, together with the correspondence which accompanied it, is herewith communicated. I trust that whilst you may see in it nothing objectionable, it may be the means of preserving for an indefinite period the amicable relations happily existing between the two Governments. The question of peace or war between the United States and Great Britain is a question of the deepest interest, not only to themselves, but to the civilized world, since it is scarcely possible that a war could exist between them without endangering the peace of Christendom. The immediate effect of the treaty upon ourselves will be felt in the security afforded to mercantile enterprise, which, no longer apprehensive of interruption, adventures its speculations in the most distant seas, and, freighted with the diversified productions of every land, returns to bless our own. There is nothing in the treaty which in the slightest degree compromits the honor or dignity of either nation. Next to the settlement of the boundary line, which must always be a matter of difficulty between states as between individuals, the question which seemed to threaten the greatest embarrassment was that connected with the African slave trade.

By the tenth article of the treaty of Ghent it was expressly declared that—

Whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and justice, and whereas both His Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object.

In the enforcement of the laws and treaty stipulations of Great Britain a practice had threatened to grow up on the part of its cruisers of subjecting to visitation ships sailing under the American flag, which, while it seriously involved our maritime rights, would subject to vexation a branch of our trade which was daily increasing, and which required the fostering care of Government. And although Lord Aberdeen in his correspondence with the American envoys at London expressly disclaimed all right to detain an American ship on the high seas, even if found with a cargo of slaves on board, and restricted the British pretension to a mere claim to visit and inquire, yet it could not well be discerned by the Executive of the United States how such visit and inquiry could be made without detention on the voyage and consequent interruption to the trade. It was regarded as the right of search presented only in a new form and expressed in different words, and I therefore felt it to be my duty distinctly to declare in my annual message to Congress that no such concession could be made, and that the United States had both the will and the ability to enforce their own laws and to protect their flag from being used for purposes wholly forbidden by those laws and obnoxious to the moral censure of the world. Taking the message as his letter of instructions, our then minister at Paris felt himself required to assume the same ground in a remonstrance which he felt it to be his duty to present to Mr. Guizot, and through him to the King of the French, against what has been called the "quintuple treaty;" and his conduct in this respect met with the approval of this Government. In close conformity with these views the eighth article of the treaty was framed, which provides "that each nation shall keep afloat in the African seas a force not less than 80 guns, to act separately and apart, under instructions from their respective Governments, and for the enforcement of their respective laws and obligations." From this it will be seen that the ground assumed in the message has been fully maintained at the same time that the stipulations of the treaty of Ghent are to be carried out in good faith by the two countries, and that all pretense is removed for interference with our commerce for any purpose whatever by a foreign government. While, therefore, the United States have been standing up for the freedom of the seas, they have not thought proper to make that a pretext for avoiding a fulfillment of their treaty stipulations or a ground for giving countenance to a trade reprobated by our laws. A similar arrangement by the other great powers could not fail to sweep from the ocean the slave trade without the interpolation of any new principle into the maritime code. We may be permitted to hope that the example thus set will be followed by some if not all of them. We thereby also afford suitable protection to the fair trader in those seas, thus fulfilling at the same time the dictates of a sound policy and complying with the claims of justice and humanity.

It would have furnished additional cause for congratulation if the treaty could have embraced all subjects calculated in future to lead to a misunderstanding between the two Governments. The Territory of the United States commonly called the Oregon Territory, lying on the Pacific Ocean north of the forty-second degree of latitude, to a portion of which Great Britain lays claim, begins to attract the attention of our fellow-citizens, and the tide of population which has reclaimed what was so lately an unbroken wilderness in more contiguous regions is preparing to flow over those vast districts which stretch from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. In advance of the acquirement of individual rights to these lands, sound policy dictates that every effort should be resorted to by the two Governments to settle their respective claims. It became manifest at an early hour of the late negotiations that any attempt for the time being satisfactorily to determine those rights would lead to a protracted discussion, which might embrace in its failure other more pressing matters, and the Executive did not regard it as proper to waive all the advantages of an honorable adjustment of other difficulties of great magnitude and importance because this, not so immediately pressing, stood in the way. Although the difficulty referred to may not for several years to come involve the peace of the two countries, yet I shall not delay to urge on Great Britain the importance of its early settlement. Nor will other matters of commercial importance to the two countries be overlooked, and I have good reason to believe that it will comport with the policy of England, as it does with that of the United States, to seize upon this moment, when most of the causes of irritation have passed away, to cement the peace and amity of the two countries by wisely removing all grounds of probable future collision.