A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents - James D. Richardson
Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35
JAMES MONROE.
[Footnote: A: An error; so in the original message. The date of the
resolution is the 18th of April.]
WASHINGTON, _April 30, 1822_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
In compliance with a resolution of the Senate, requesting the President
of the United States to cause to be laid before the Senate certain
information respecting the practical operation of the system of
subsisting the Army under the provisions of the act passed the 14th
of April, 1818, etc., I herewith transmit a report from the Secretary
of War, furnishing the information required.
JAMES MONROE.
WASHINGTON, _May 1, 1822_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:
In the message to both Houses of Congress at the commencement of their
present session it was mentioned that the Government of Norway had
issued an ordinance for admitting the vessels of the United States and
their cargoes into the ports of that Kingdom upon the payment of no
other or higher duties than are paid by Norwegian vessels, of whatever
articles the said cargoes may consist and from whatever ports the
vessels laden with them may come.
In communicating this ordinance to the Government of the United States
that of Norway has requested the benefit of a similar and reciprocal
provision for the vessels of Norway and their cargoes which may enter
the ports of the United States.
This provision being within the competency only of the legislative
authority of Congress, I communicate to them herewith copies of the
communications received from the Norwegian Government in relation to
the subject, and recommend the same to their consideration.
JAMES MONROE.
WASHINGTON, _May 1, 1822_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:
I transmit herewith to Congress copies of letters received at the
Department of State from the minister of Great Britain on the subject
of the duties discriminating between imported rolled and hammered iron.
I recommend them particularly to the consideration of Congress, believing
that although there may be ground for controversy with regard to the
application of the engagements of the treaty to the case, yet a liberal
construction of those engagements would be compatible at once with a
conciliatory and a judicious policy.
JAMES MONROE.
WASHINGTON, _May 4, 1822_.
_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:
In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the
19th of April, requesting the President "to cause to be communicated to
the House, if not injurious to the public interest, any letter which
may have been received from Jonathan Russell, one of the ministers
who concluded the treaty of Ghent, in conformity with the indications
contained in his letter of the 25th of December, 1814," I have to state
that having referred the resolution to the Secretary of State, and
it appearing, by a report from him, that no such document had been
deposited among the archives of the Department, I examined and found
among my private papers a letter of that description marked "private"
by himself. I transmit a copy of the report of the Secretary of State,
by which it appears that Mr. Russell, on being apprised that the document
referred to by the resolution had not been deposited in the Department
of State, delivered there "a paper purporting to be the duplicate of a
letter written by him from Paris on the 11th of February, 1815, to the
then Secretary of State, to be communicated to the House as the letter
called for by the resolution."
On the perusal of the document called for I find that it communicates
a difference of opinion between Mr. Russell and a majority of his
colleagues in certain transactions which occurred in the negotiations at
Ghent, touching interests which have been since satisfactorily adjusted
by treaty between the United States and Great Britain. The view which
Mr. Russell presents of his own conduct and that of his colleagues in
those transactions will, it is presumed, call from the two surviving
members of that mission who differed from him a reply containing
their view of those transactions and of the conduct of the parties
in them, and who, should his letter be communicated to the House of
Representatives, will also claim that their reply should be communicated
in like manner by the Executive--a claim which, on the principle of
equal justice, could not be resisted. The Secretary of State, one of the
ministers referred to, has already expressed a desire that Mr. Russell's
letter should be communicated, and that I would transmit at the same
time a communication from him respecting it.
On full consideration of the subject I have thought it would be improper
for the Executive to communicate the letter called for unless the House,
on a knowledge of these circumstances, should desire it, in which case
the document called for shall be communicated, accompanied by a report
from the Secretary of State, as above suggested. I have directed a copy
to be delivered to Mr. Russell, to be disposed of as he may think
proper, and have caused the original to be deposited in the Department
of State, with instruction to deliver a copy to any person who may be
interested.
JAMES MONROE.
WASHINGTON, _May 6, 1822_.
_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I transmit to Congress translations of two letters from Don Joaquin
d'Anduaga to the Secretary of State, which have been received at the
Department of State since my last message communicating copies of big
correspondence with this Government.
JAMES MONROE.
_Don Joaquin de Anduaga to the Secretary of State_.
[Translation.]
PHILADELPHIA, _April 24, 1822_.
SIR: As soon as the news was received in Madrid of the recent
occurrences in New Spain after the arrival at Vera Cruz of the
Captain-General and supreme political chief appointed for those
Provinces, Don Juan O. Donoju, and some papers were seen relative to
those same transactions, it was feared that for forming the treaty
concluded in Cordova on the 24th of August last between the said General
and the traitor, Colonel Dr. Augustine Iturbide, it had been falsely
supposed that the former had power from His Catholic Majesty for that
act, and in a little time the correctness of those suspicions was found,
as, among other things, the said O. Donoju, when on the 26th of the same
August he sent this treaty to the governor of Vera Cruz, notifying
him of its prompt and punctual observance, he told him that at his
sailing from the Peninsula preparation for the independence of Mexico
was already thought of, and that its bases were approved of by the
Government and by a commission of the Cortes. His Majesty, on sight
of this and of the fatal impression which so great an imposture had
produced in some ultramarine Provinces, and what must without difficulty
be the consequence among the rest, thought proper to order that, by
means of a circular to all the chiefs and corporations beyond seas,
this atrocious falsehood should be disbelieved; and now he has deigned
to command me to make it known to the Government of the United States
that it is false as far as General O. Donoju published beyond his
instructions, by pointing out to it that he never could have been
furnished with other instructions than those conformable to
constitutional principles.
In compliance with this order of His Majesty, I can do no less than
observe to you, sir, how unfounded one of the reasons is in your note
of the 6th instant for the recognition by this Government of those of
the insurgent Provinces of Spanish-America--that it was founded on the
treaty made by O. Donoju with Iturbide--since not having had that power
nor instruction to conclude it it is clearly null and of no value.
I repeat to you, sir, the sentiments of my distinguished consideration,
and pray God that you live many years.
JOAQUIN DE ANDUAGA.
_Don Joaquin de Anduaga to the Secretary of State_.
[Translation.]
PHILADELPHIA, _April 26, 1822_.
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS,
_Secretary of State_.
SIR: I have received your note of the 15th instant, in which you are
pleased to communicate to me the reasons which induce the President
not only to refuse to His Catholic Majesty the satisfaction which he
demanded in his royal name for the insults offered by General Jackson
to the Spanish commissaries and officers, but to approve fully of the
said chief's conduct.
Before answering the contents of the said note I thought it my duty to
request instructions from my Government, and therefore without delay I
have laid it before them. Until they arrive, therefore, I have confined
myself to two observations:
First. If in my note of the 18th of November last I said that as General
Jackson had not specified the actions which had induced him to declare
the Spanish officers expelled from the Floridas criminal, nor given
proof of them, I thought myself authorized to declare the accusation
false, I did not this through inadvertency, but upon the evident
principle that every person accused has a right to declare an accusation
destitute of proof false, and, much more, an accusation not pretended
to be proved. This assertion of mine does not presume that I am not
persuaded of the merit of the said General and of the claim which he has
upon the gratitude of his country; but although it is believed the duty
of his country to eulogize and reward his eminent services, yet it will
be lawful for the representative of a power outraged by him to complain
of his conduct. I can not persuade myself that to aggravate my said
expression you could have thought that I had been wanting in due
respect, it not being possible for that opinion to have entered your
mind, when by his orders Mr. Forsyth had sent to the Spanish minister
on the 1st of September last a note, in which, complaining of the
Captain-General of the island of Cuba, he accuses him of dishonorable
pecuniary motives in not having delivered the archives, without giving
any proof of so injurious an assertion; and I must remark that the rank
of General Mabry in Spain is at least as elevated as that of General
Jackson in the United States, and that the services performed by him to
his country have rendered him as worthy as he of its consideration and
respect.
Second. Although you are pleased to tell me that part of the papers
taken from Colonel Coppinger are ready to be delivered, which the
American commissioners, _after having examined them_, have adjudged to
be returned to Spain, I do not think myself authorized to admit their
return in this manner, but in the mode which I demanded in my note of
the 22d of November last.
As I have seen by the public papers that the President has communicated
to Congress the note which you were pleased to address to me, dated
the 15th instant, and that it has been ordered to be printed, I take
the liberty of requesting that you will have the goodness to use your
influence that this my answer may be treated in the same manner, that
Congress and the public may be informed that if I have not answered the
first part of it as respects the general business, it is only to wait
for the instructions of my Government, but that I have answered what
was personal.
I renew to you, sir, the sentiments of my distinguished consideration.
JOAQUIN DE ANDUAGA.
WASHINGTON, _May 6, 1822_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 26th of April,
requesting the President of the United States "to communicate to the
Senate the report of the Attorney-General relative to any persons
(citizens of the United States) who have been charged with or suspected
of introducing any slaves into the United States contrary to existing
laws," I transmit herewith two reports from the Attorney-General.
JAMES MONROE.
WASHINGTON, _May 7, 1822_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 25th of April,
requesting certain information concerning lead mines on lands of the
United States, I herewith transmit a report from the Secretary of War.
JAMES MONROE.
WASHINGTON, _May 7, 1822_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the
23d of April, requesting the President of the United States to cause to
be communicated to that House certain information respecting the lead
mines of the State of Missouri, I herewith transmit a report of the
Secretary of War.
JAMES MONROE.
WASHINGTON, _May 7, 1822_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of
the 7th of May, requesting the President to communicate to that House
a letter of Jonathan Russell, esq., referred to in his message of the
4th instant, together with such communications as he may have received
relative thereto from any of the other ministers of the United States
who negotiated the treaty of Ghent, I herewith transmit a report from
the Secretary of State, with the documents called for by that
resolution.
JAMES MONROE.
VETO MESSAGE.
WASHINGTON, _May 4, 1822_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
Having duly considered the bill entitled "An act for the preservation
and repair of the Cumberland road," it is with deep regret, approving
as I do the policy, that I am compelled to object to its passage and to
return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated,
under a conviction that Congress do not possess the power under the
Constitution to pass such a law.
A power to establish turnpikes with gates and tolls, and to enforce the
collection of tolls by penalties, implies a power to adopt and execute a
complete system of internal improvement. A right to impose duties to be
paid by all persons passing a certain road, and on horses and carriages,
as is done by this bill, involves the right to take the land from the
proprietor on a valuation and to pass laws for the protection of the
road from injuries, and if it exist as to one road it exists as to any
other, and to as many roads as Congress may think proper to establish.
A right to legislate for one of these purposes is a right to legislate
for the others. It is a complete right of jurisdiction and sovereignty
for all the purposes of internal improvement, and not merely the
right of applying money under the power vested in Congress to make
appropriations, under which power, with the consent of the States
through which this road passes, the work was originally commenced, and
has been so far executed. I am of opinion that Congress do not possess
this power; that the States individually can not grant it, for although
they may assent to the appropriation of money within their limits for
such purposes, they can grant no power of jurisdiction or sovereignty by
special compacts with the United States. This power can be granted only
by an amendment to the Constitution and in the mode prescribed by it.
If the power exist, it must be either because it has been specifically
granted to the United States or that it is incidental to some power
which has been specifically granted. If we examine the specific grants
of power we do not find it among them, nor is it incidental to any power
which has been specifically granted.
It has never been contended that the power was specifically granted.
It is claimed only as being incidental to some one or more of the powers
which are specifically granted. The following are the powers from which
it is said to be derived:
First, from the right to establish post-offices and post-roads; second,
from the right to declare war; third, to regulate commerce; fourth,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare;
fifth, from the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying
into execution all the powers vested by the Constitution in the
Government of the United States or in any department or officer thereof;
sixth and lastly, from the power to dispose of and make all needful
rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property of
the United States.
According to my judgment it can not be derived from either of those
powers, nor from all of them united, and in consequence it does not
exist.
Having stated my objections to the bill, I should now cheerfully
communicate at large the reasons on which they are founded if I had
time to reduce them to such form as to include them in this paper. The
advanced stage of the session renders that impossible. Having at the
commencement of my service in this high trust considered it a duty to
express the opinion that the United States do not possess the power in
question, and to suggest for the consideration of Congress the propriety
of recommending to the States an amendment to the Constitution to vest
the power in the United States, my attention has been often drawn to the
subject since, in consequence whereof I have occasionally committed my
sentiments to paper respecting it. The form which this exposition has
assumed is not such as I should have given it had it been intended for
Congress, nor is it concluded. Nevertheless, as it contains my views
on this subject, being one which I deem of very high importance, and
which in many of its bearings has now become peculiarly urgent, I will
communicate it to Congress, if in my power, in the course of the day,
or certainly on Monday next.
JAMES MONROE.
WASHINGTON, _May 4, 1822_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I transmit the paper alluded to in the message of this day, on the
subject of internal improvements.
JAMES MONROE.
VIEWS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE SUBJECT OF INTERNAL
IMPROVEMENTS.
It may be presumed that the proposition relating to internal
improvements by roads and canals, which has been several times before
Congress, will be taken into consideration again either for the purpose
of recommending to the States the adoption of an amendment to the
Constitution to vest the necessary power in the General Government or
to carry the system into effect on the principle that the power has
already been granted. It seems to be the prevailing opinion that great
advantage would be derived from the exercise of such a power by Congress.
Respecting the right there is much diversity of sentiment. It is of the
highest importance that this question should be settled. If the right
exist, it ought forthwith to be exercised. If it does not exist, surely
those who are friends to the power ought to unite in recommending an
amendment to the Constitution to obtain it. I propose to examine this
question.
The inquiry confined to its proper objects and within the most limited
scale is extensive. Our Government is unlike other governments both in
its origin and form. In analyzing it the differences in certain respects
between it and those of other nations, ancient and modern, necessarily
come into view. I propose to notice these differences so far as they are
connected with the object of inquiry, and the consequences likely to
result from them, varying in equal degree from those which have attended
other governments. The digression, if it may be so called, will in every
instance be short and the transition to the main object immediate and
direct.
To do justice to the subject it will be necessary to mount to the source
of power in these States and to pursue this power in its gradations and
distribution among the several departments in which it is now vested.
The great division is between the State governments and the General
Government. If there was a perfect accord in every instance as to
the precise extent of the powers granted to the General Government,
we should then know with equal certainty what were the powers which
remained to the State governments, since it would follow that those
which were not granted to the one would remain to the other. But it is
on this point, and particularly respecting the construction of these
powers and their incidents, that a difference of opinion exists, and
hence it is necessary to trace distinctly the origin of each government,
the purposes intended by it, and the means adopted to accomplish them.
By having the interior of both governments fully before us we shall have
all the means which can be afforded to enable us to form a correct
opinion of the endowments of each.
Before the Revolution the present States, then colonies, were separate
communities, unconnected with each other except in their common relation
to the Crown. Their governments were instituted by grants from the
Crown, which operated, according to the conditions of each grant, in
the nature of a compact between the settlers in each colony and the
Crown. All power not retained in the Crown was vested exclusively in
the colonies, each having a government consisting of an executive, a
judiciary, and a legislative assembly, one branch of which was in every
instance elected by the people. No office was hereditary, nor did any
title under the Crown give rank or office in any of the colonies. In
resisting the encroachments of the parent country and abrogating the
power of the Crown the authority which had been held by it vested
exclusively in the people of the colonies, By them was a Congress
appointed, composed of delegates from each colony, who managed the war,
declared independence, treated with foreign powers, and acted in all
things according to the sense of their constituents. The Declaration of
Independence confirmed in form what had before existed in substance.
It announced to the world new States, possessing and exercising complete
sovereignty, which they were resolved to maintain. They were soon after
recognized by France and other powers, and finally by Great Britain
herself in 1783.
Soon after the power of the Crown was annulled the people of each
colony established a constitution or frame of government for themselves,
in which these separate branches--legislative, executive, and
judiciary--were instituted, each independent of the others. To these
branches, each having its appropriate portion, the whole power of the
people not delegated to Congress was communicated, to be exercised for
their advantage on the representative principle by persons of their
appointment, or otherwise deriving their authority immediately from
them, and holding their offices for stated terms. All the powers
necessary for useful purposes held by any of the strongest governments
of the Old World not vested in Congress were imparted to these State
governments without other checks than such as are necessary to prevent
abuse, in the form of fundamental declarations or bills of right. The
great difference between our governments and those of the Old World
consists in this, that the former, being representative, the persons who
exercise their powers do it not for themselves or in their own right,
but for the people, and therefore while they are in the highest degree
efficient they can never become oppressive. It is this transfer of
the power of the people to representative and responsible bodies in
every branch which constitutes the great improvement in the science
of government and forms the boast of our system. It combines all the
advantages of every known government without any of their disadvantages.
It retains the sovereignty in the people, while it avoids the tumult
and disorder incident to the exercise of that power by the people
themselves. It possesses all the energy and efficiency of the most
despotic governments, while it avoids all the oppressions and abuses
inseparable from those governments.
In every stage of the conflict from its commencement until March,
1781, the powers of Congress were undefined, but of vast extent.
The assemblies or conventions of the several colonies being formed by
representatives from every county in each colony and the Congress by
delegates from each colonial assembly, the powers of the latter for
general purposes resembled those of the former for local. They rested
on the same basis, the people, and were complete for all the purposes
contemplated. Never was a movement so spontaneous, so patriotic, so
efficient. The nation exerted its whole faculties in support of its
rights, and of its independence after the contest took that direction,
and it succeeded. It was, however, foreseen at a very early stage
that although the patriotism of the country might be relied on in
the struggle for its independence, a well-digested compact would be
necessary to preserve it after obtained. A plan of confederation was
in consequence proposed and taken into consideration by Congress even
at the moment when the other great act which severed them from Great
Britain and declared their independence was proclaimed to the world.
This compact was ratified on the 21st March, 1781, by the last State,
and thereupon carried into immediate effect.
The following powers were vested in the United States by the Articles
of Confederation. As this, the first bond of union, was in operation
nearly eight years, during which time a practical construction was given
to many of its powers, all of which were adopted in the Constitution
with important additions, it is thought that a correct view of those
powers and of the manner in which they are executed may shed light on
the subject under consideration. It may fairly be presumed that where
certain powers were transferred from one instrument to the other and
in the same terms, or terms descriptive only of the same powers, that
it was intended that they should be construed in the same sense in
the latter that they were in the former.