Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and of the House of Representatives:

It is to me a source of unaffected satisfaction to meet the representatives
of the States and the people in Congress assembled, as it will be to
receive the aid of their combined wisdom in the administration of public
affairs. In performing for the first time the duty imposed on me by the
Constitution of giving to you information of the state of the Union and
recommending to your consideration such measures as in my judgment are
necessary and expedient, I am happy that I can congratulate you on the
continued prosperity of our country. Under the blessings of Divine
Providence and the benign influence of our free institutions, it stands
before the world a spectacle of national happiness.

With our unexampled advancement in all the elements of national greatness,
the affection of the people is confirmed for the Union of the States and
for the doctrines of popular liberty which lie at the foundation of our
Government.

It becomes us in humility to make our devout acknowledgments to the Supreme
Ruler of the Universe for the inestimable civil and religious blessings
with which we are favored.

In calling the attention of Congress to our relations with foreign powers,
I am gratified to be able to state that though with some of them there have
existed since your last session serious causes of irritation and
misunderstanding, yet no actual hostilities have taken place. Adopting the
maxim in the conduct of our foreign affairs "to ask nothing that is not
right and submit to nothing that is wrong," it has been my anxious desire
to preserve peace with all nations, but at the same time to be prepared to
resist aggression and maintain all our just rights.

In pursuance of the joint resolution of Congress "for annexing Texas to the
United States," my predecessor, on the 3d day of March, 1845, elected to
submit the first and second sections of that resolution to the Republic of
Texas as an overture on the part of the United States for her admission as
a State into our Union. This election I approved, and accordingly the
charge d'affaires of the United States in Texas, under instructions of the
10th of March, 1845, presented these sections of the resolution for the
acceptance of that Republic. The executive government, the Congress, and
the people of Texas in convention have successively complied with all the
terms and conditions of the joint resolution. A constitution for the
government of the State of Texas, formed by a convention of deputies, is
herewith laid before Congress. It is well known, also, that the people of
Texas at the polls have accepted the terms of annexation and ratified the
constitution. I communicate to Congress the correspondence between the
Secretary of State and our charge d'affaires in Texas, and also the
correspondence of the latter with the authorities of Texas, together with
the official documents transmitted by him to his own Government. The terms
of annexation which were offered by the United States having been accepted
by Texas, the public faith of both parties is solemnly pledged to the
compact of their union. Nothing remains to consummate the event but the
passage of an act by Congress to admit the State of Texas into the Union
upon an equal footing with the original States. Strong reasons exist why
this should be done at an early period of the session. It will be observed
that by the constitution of Texas the existing government is only continued
temporarily till Congress can act, and that the third Monday of the present
month is the day appointed for holding the first general election. On that
day a governor, a lieutenant-governor, and both branches of the legislature
will be chosen by the people. The President of Texas is required,
immediately after the receipt of official information that the new State
has been admitted into our Union by Congress, to convene the legislature,
and upon its meeting the existing government will be superseded and the
State government organized. Questions deeply interesting to Texas, in
common with the other States, the extension of our revenue laws and
judicial system over her people and territory, as well as measures of a
local character, will claim the early attention of Congress, and therefore
upon every principle of republican government she ought to be represented
in that body without unnecessary delay. I can not too earnestly recommend
prompt action on this important subject. As soon as the act to admit Texas
as a State shall be passed the union of the two Republics will be
consummated by their own voluntary consent.

This accession to our territory has been a bloodless achievement. No arm of
force has been raised to produce the result. The sword has had no part in
the victory. We have not sought to extend our territorial possessions by
conquest, or our republican institutions over a reluctant people. It was
the deliberate homage of each people to the great principle of our
federative union. If we consider the extent of territory involved in the
annexation, its prospective influence on America, the means by which it has
been accomplished, springing purely from the choice of the people
themselves to share the blessings of our union, the history of the world
may be challenged to furnish a parallel. The jurisdiction of the United
States, which at the formation of the Federal Constitution was bounded by
the St. Marys on the Atlantic, has passed the capes of Florida and been
peacefully extended to the Del Norte. In contemplating the grandeur of this
event it is not to be forgotten that the result was achieved in despite of
the diplomatic interference of European monarchies. Even France, the
country which had been our ancient ally, the country which has a common
interest with us in maintaining the freedom of the seas, the country which,
by the cession of Louisiana, first opened to us access to the Gulf of
Mexico, the country with which we have been every year drawing more and
more closely the bonds of successful commerce, most unexpectedly, and to
our unfeigned regret, took part in an effort to prevent annexation and to
impose on Texas, as a condition of the recognition of her independence by
Mexico, that she would never join herself to the United States. We may
rejoice that the tranquil and pervading influence of the American principle
of self-government was sufficient to defeat the purposes of British and
French interference, and that the almost unanimous voice of the people of
Texas has given to that interference a peaceful and effective rebuke. From
this example European Governments may learn how vain diplomatic arts and
intrigues must ever prove upon this continent against that system of
self-government which seems natural to our soil, and which will ever resist
foreign interference.

Toward Texas I do not doubt that a liberal and generous spirit will actuate
Congress in all that concerns her interests and prosperity, and that she
will never have cause to regret that she has united her "lone star" to our
glorious constellation.

I regret to inform you that our relations with Mexico since your last
session have not been of the amicable character which it is our desire to
cultivate with all foreign nations. On the 6th day of March last the
Mexican envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to the United
States made a formal protest in the name of his Government against the
joint resolution passed by Congress "for the annexation of Texas to the
United States," which he chose to regard as a violation of the rights of
Mexico, and in consequence of it he demanded his passports. He was informed
that the Government of the United States did not consider this joint
resolution as a violation of any of the rights of Mexico, or that it
afforded any just cause of offense to his Government; that the Republic of
Texas was an independent power, owing no allegiance to Mexico and
constituting no part of her territory or rightful sovereignty and
jurisdiction. He was also assured that it was the sincere desire of this
Government to maintain with that of Mexico relations of peace and good
understanding. That functionary, however, notwithstanding these
representations and assurances, abruptly terminated his mission and shortly
afterwards left the country. Our envoy extraordinary and minister
plenipotentiary to Mexico was refused all official intercourse with that
Government, and, after remaining several months, by the permission of his
own Government he returned to the United States. Thus, by the acts of
Mexico, all diplomatic intercourse between the two countries was
suspended.

Since that time Mexico has until recently occupied an attitude of hostility
toward the United States--has been marshaling and organizing armies,
issuing proclamations, and avowing the intention to make war on the United
States, either by an open declaration or by invading Texas. Both the
Congress and convention of the people of Texas invited this Government to
send an army into that territory to protect and defend them against the
menaced attack. The moment the terms of annexation offered by the United
States were accepted by Texas the latter became so far a part of our own
country as to make it our duty to afford such protection and defense. I
therefore deemed it proper, as a precautionary measure, to order a strong
squadron to the coasts of Mexico and to concentrate an efficient military
force on the western frontier of Texas. Our Army was ordered to take
position in the country between the Nueces and the Del Norte, and to repel
any invasion of the Texan territory which might be attempted by the Mexican
forces. Our squadron in the Gulf was ordered to cooperate with the Army.
But though our Army and Navy were placed in a position to defend our own
and the rights of Texas, they were ordered to commit no act of hostility
against Mexico unless she declared war or was herself the aggressor by
striking the first blow. The result has been that Mexico has made no
aggressive movement, and our military and naval commanders have executed
their orders with such discretion that the peace of the two Republics has
not been disturbed. Texas had declared her independence and maintained it
by her arms for more than nine years. She has had an organized government
in successful operation during that period. Her separate existence as an
independent state had been recognized by the United States and the
principal powers of Europe. Treaties of commerce and navigation had been
concluded with her by different nations, and it had become manifest to the
whole world that any further attempt on the part of Mexico to conquer her
or overthrow her Government would be vain. Even Mexico herself had become
satisfied of this fact, and whilst the question of annexation was pending
before the people of Texas during the past summer the Government of Mexico,
by a formal act, agreed to recognize the independence of Texas on condition
that she would not annex herself to any other power. The agreement to
acknowledge the independence of Texas, whether with or without this
condition, is conclusive against Mexico. The independence of Texas is a
fact conceded by Mexico herself, and she had no right or authority to
prescribe restrictions as to the form of government which Texas might
afterwards choose to assume. But though Mexico can not complain of the
United States on account of the annexation of Texas, it is to be regretted
that serious causes of misunderstanding between the two countries continue
to exist, growing out of unredressed injuries inflicted by the Mexican
authorities and people on the persons and property of citizens of the
United States through a long series of years. Mexico has admitted these
injuries, but has neglected and refused to repair them. Such was the
character of the wrongs and such the insults repeatedly offered to American
citizens and the American flag by Mexico, in palpable violation of the laws
of nations and the treaty between the two countries of the 5th of April,
1831, that they have been repeatedly brought to the notice of Congress by
my predecessors. As early as the 6th of February, 1837, the President of
the United States declared in a message to Congress that--

The length of time since some of the injuries have been committed, the
repeated and unavailing applications for redress, the wanton character of
some of the outrages upon the property and persons of our citizens, upon
the officers and flag of the United States, independent of recent insults
to this Government and people by the late extraordinary Mexican minister,
would justify in the eyes of all nations immediate war.

He did not, however, recommend an immediate resort to this extreme measure,
which, he declared, "should not be used by just and generous nations,
confiding in their strength for injuries committed, if it can be honorably
avoided," but, in a spirit of forbearance, proposed that another demand be
made on Mexico for that redress which had been so long and unjustly
withheld. In these views committees of the two Houses of Congress, in
reports made to their respective bodies, concurred. Since these proceedings
more than eight years have elapsed, during which, in addition to the wrongs
then complained of, others of an aggravated character have been committed
on the persons and property of our citizens. A special agent was sent to
Mexico in the summer of 1838 with full authority to make another and final
demand for redress. The demand was made; the Mexican Government promised to
repair the wrongs of which we complained, and after much delay a treaty of
indemnity with that view was concluded between the two powers on the 11th
of April, 1839, and was duly ratified by both Governments. By this treaty a
joint commission was created to adjudicate and decide on the claims of
American citizens on the Government of Mexico. The commission was organized
at Washington on the 25th day of August, 1840. Their time was limited to
eighteen months, at the expiration of which they had adjudicated and
decided claims amounting to $2,026,139.68 in favor of citizens of the
United States against the Mexican Government, leaving a large amount of
claims undecided. Of the latter the American commissioners had decided in
favor of our citizens claims amounting to $928,627.88, which were left
unacted on by the umpire authorized by the treaty. Still further claims,
amounting to between three and four millions of dollars, were submitted to
the board too late to be considered, and were left undisposed of. The sum
of $2,026,139.68, decided by the board, was a liquidated and ascertained
debt due by Mexico to the claimants, and there was no justifiable reason
for delaying its payment according to the terms of the treaty. It was not,
however, paid. Mexico applied for further indulgence, and, in that spirit
of liberality and forbearance which has ever marked the policy of the
United States toward that Republic, the request was granted, and on the
30th of January, 1843, a new treaty was concluded. By this treaty it was
provided that the interest due on the awards in favor of claimants under
the convention of the 11th of April, 1839, should be paid out the 30th of
April, 1843, and that--

The principal of the said awards and the interest accruing thereon shall be
paid in five years, in equal installments every three months, the said term
of five years to commence on the 30th day of April, 1843, aforesaid.

The interest due on the 30th day of April, 1843, and the three first of the
twenty installments have been paid. Seventeen of these installments, remain
unpaid, seven of which are now due.

The claims which were left undecided by the joint commission, amounting to
more than $3,000,000, together with other claims for spoliations on the
property of our citizens, were subsequently presented to the Mexican
Government for payment, and were so far recognized that a treaty providing
for their examination and settlement by a joint commission was concluded
and signed at Mexico on the 20th day of November, 1843. This treaty was
ratified by the United States with certain amendments to which no just
exception could have been taken, but it has not yet received the
ratification of the Mexican Government. In the meantime our citizens, who
suffered great losses--and some of whom have been reduced from affluence to
bankruptcy--are without remedy unless their rights be enforced by their
Government. Such a continued and unprovoked series of wrongs could never
have been tolerated by the United States had they been committed by one of
the principal nations of Europe. Mexico was, however, a neighboring sister
republic, which, following our example, had achieved her independence, and
for whose success and prosperity all our sympathies were early enlisted.
The United States were the first to recognize her independence and to
receive her into the family of nations, and have ever been desirous of
cultivating with her a good understanding. We have therefore borne the
repeated wrongs she has committed with great patience, in the hope that a
returning sense of justice would ultimately guide her councils and that we
might, if possible, honorably avoid any hostile collision with her. Without
the previous authority of Congress the Executive possessed no power to
adopt or enforce adequate remedies for the injuries we had suffered, or to
do more than to be prepared to repel the threatened aggression on the part
of Mexico. After our Army and Navy had remained on the frontier and coasts
of Mexico for many weeks without any hostile movement on her part, though
her menaces were continued, I deemed it important to put an end, if
possible, to this state of things. With this view I caused steps to be
taken in the month of September last to ascertain distinctly and in an
authentic form what the designs of the Mexican Government were--whether it
was their intention to declare war, or invade Texas, or whether they were
disposed to adjust and settle in an amicable manner the pending differences
between the two countries. On the 9th of November an official answer was
received that the Mexican Government consented to renew the diplomatic
relations which had been suspended in March last, and for that purpose were
willing to accredit a minister from the United States. With a sincere
desire to preserve peace and restore relations of good understanding
between the two Republics, I waived all ceremony as to the manner of
renewing diplomatic intercourse between them, and, assuming the initiative,
on the 10th of November a distinguished citizen of Louisiana was appointed
envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Mexico, clothed with
full powers to adjust and definitively settle all pending differences
between the two countries, including those of boundary between Mexico and
the State of Texas. The minister appointed has set out on his mission and
is probably by this time near the Mexican capital. He has been instructed
to bring the negotiation with which he is charged to a conclusion at the
earliest practicable period, which it is expected will be in time to enable
me to communicate the result to Congress during the present session. Until
that result is known I forbear to recommend to Congress such ulterior
measures of redress for the wrongs and injuries we have so long borne as it
would have been proper to make had no such negotiation been instituted.

Congress appropriated at the last session the sum of $275,000 for the
payment of the April and July installments of the Mexican indemnities for
the year 1844:

Provided it shall be ascertained to the satisfaction of the American
Government that said installments have been paid by the Mexican Government
to the agent appointed by the United States to receive the same in such
manner as to discharge all claim on the Mexican Government, and said agent
to be delinquent in remitting the money to the United States.

The unsettled state of our relations with Mexico has involved this subject
in much mystery. The first information in an authentic form from the agent
of the United States, appointed under the Administration of my predecessor,
was received at the State Department on the 9th of November last. This is
contained in a letter, dated the 17th of October, addressed by him to one
of our citizens then in Mexico with a view of having it communicated to
that Department. From this it appears that the agent on the 20th of
September, 1844, gave a receipt to the treasury of Mexico for the amount of
the April and July installments of the indemnity. In the same
communication, however, he asserts that he had not received a single dollar
in cash, but that he holds such securities as warranted him at the time in
giving the receipt, and entertains no doubt but that he will eventually
obtain the money. As these installments appear never to have been actually
paid by the Government of Mexico to the agent, and as that Government has
not, therefore, been released so as to discharge the claim, I do not feel
myself warranted in directing payment to be made to the claimants out of
the Treasury without further legislation. Their case is undoubtedly one of
much hardship, and it remains for Congress to decide whether any, and what,
relief ought to be granted to them. Our minister to Mexico has been
instructed to ascertain the facts of the case from the Mexican Government
in an authentic and official form and report the result with as little
delay as possible.

My attention was early directed to the negotiation which on the 4th of
March last I found pending at Washington between the United States and
Great Britain on the subject of the Oregon Territory. Three several
attempts had been previously made to settle the questions in dispute
between the two countries by negotiation upon the principle of compromise,
but each had proved unsuccessful. These negotiations took place at London
in the years 1818, 1824, and 1826--the two first under the Administration
of Mr. Monroe and the last under that of Mr. Adams. The negotiation of
1818, having failed to accomplish its object, resulted in the convention of
the 20th of October of that year.

By the third article of that convention it was--

Agreed that any country that may be claimed by either party on the
northwest coast of America westward of the Stony Mountains shall, together
with its harbors, bays, and creeks, and the navigation of all rivers within
the same, be free and open for the term of ten years from the date of the
signature of the present convention to the vessels, citizens, and subjects
of the two powers; it being well understood that this agreement is not to
be construed to the prejudice of any claim which either of the two high
contracting parties may have to any part of the said country, nor shall it
be taken to affect the claims of any other power or state to any part of
the said country, the only object of the high contracting parties in that
respect being to prevent disputes and differences amongst themselves.

The negotiation of 1824 was productive of no result, and the convention of
1818 was left unchanged.

The negotiation of 1826, having also failed to effect an adjustment by
compromise, resulted in the convention of August 6, 1827, by which it was
agreed to continue in force for an indefinite period the provisions of the
third article of the convention of the 20th of October, 1818; and it was
further provided that--

It shall be competent, however, to either of the contracting parties, in
case either should think fit, at any time after the 20th of October, 1828,
on giving due notice of twelve months to the other contracting party, to
annul and abrogate this convention; and it shall in such case be
accordingly entirely annulled and abrogated after the expiration of the
said term of notice.

In these attempts to adjust the controversy the parallel of the forty-ninth
degree of north latitude had been offered by the United States to Great
Britain, and in those of 1818 and 1826, with a further concession of the
free navigation of the Columbia River south of that latitude. The parallel
of the forty-ninth degree from the Rocky Mountains to its intersection with
the northeasternmost branch of the Columbia, and thence down the channel of
that river to the sea, had been offered by Great Britain, with an addition
of a small detached territory north of the Columbia. Each of these
propositions had been rejected by the parties respectively. In October,
1843, the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United
States in London was authorized to make a similar offer to those made in
1818 and 1826. Thus stood the question when the negotiation was shortly
afterwards transferred to Washington, and on the 23d of August, 1844, was
formally opened under the direction of my immediate predecessor. Like all
the previous negotiations, it was based upon principles of "compromise,"
and the avowed purpose of the parties was "to treat of the respective
claims of the two countries to the Oregon Territory with the view to
establish a permanent boundary between them westward of the Rocky Mountains
to the Pacific Ocean."

Accordingly, on the 26th of August, 1844, the British plenipotentiary
offered to divide the Oregon Territory by the forty-ninth parallel of north
latitude from the Rocky Mountains to the point of its intersection with the
northeasternmost branch of the Columbia River, and thence down that river
to the sea, leaving the free navigation of the river to be enjoyed in
common by both parties, the country south of this line to belong to the
United States and that north of it to Great Britain. At the same time he
proposed in addition to yield to the United States a detached territory
north of the Columbia extending along the Pacific and the Straits of Fuca
from Bulfinchs Harbor, inclusive, to Hoods Canal, and to make free to the
United States any port or ports south of latitude 49  which they might
desire, either on the mainland or on Quadra and Vancouvers Island. With the
exception of the free ports, this was the same offer which had been made by
the British and rejected by the American Government in the negotiation of
1826. This proposition was properly rejected by the American
plenipotentiary on the day it was submitted. This was the only proposition
of compromise offered by the British plenipotentiary. The proposition on
the part of Great Britain having been rejected, the British plenipotentiary
requested that a proposal should be made by the United States for "an
equitable adjustment of the question." When I came into office I found this
to be the state of the negotiation. Though entertaining the settled
conviction that the British pretensions of title could not be maintained to
any portion of the Oregon Territory upon any principle of public law
recognized by nations, yet in deference to what had been done by my
predecessors, and especially in consideration that propositions of
compromise had been thrice made by two preceding Administrations to adjust
the question on the parallel of 49 , and in two of them yielding to
Great Britain the free navigation of the Columbia, and that the pending
negotiation had been commenced on the basis of compromise, I deemed it to
be my duty not abruptly to break it off. In consideration, too, that under
the conventions of 1818 and 1827 the citizens and subjects of the two
powers held a joint occupancy of the country, I was induced to make another
effort to settle this long-pending controversy in the spirit of moderation
which had given birth to the renewed discussion. A proposition was
accordingly made, which was rejected by the British plenipotentiary, who,
without submitting any other proposition, suffered the negotiation on his
part to drop, expressing his trust that the United States would offer what
he saw fit to call "some further proposal for the settlement of the Oregon
question more consistent with fairness and equity and with the reasonable
expectations of the British Government." The proposition thus offered and
rejected repeated the offer of the parallel of 49  of north latitude,
which had been made by two preceding Administrations, but without proposing
to surrender to Great Britain, as they had done, the free navigation of the
Columbia River. The right of any foreign power to the free navigation of
any of our rivers through the heart of our country was one which I was
unwilling to concede. It also embraced a provision to make free to Great
Britain any port or ports on the cap of Quadra and Vancouvers Island south
of this parallel. Had this been a new question, coming under discussion for
the first time, this proposition would not have been made. The
extraordinary and wholly inadmissible demands of the British Government and
the rejection of the proposition made in deference alone to what had been
done by my predecessors and the implied obligation which their acts seemed
to impose afford satisfactory evidence that no compromise which the United
States ought to accept can be effected. With this conviction the
proposition of compromise which had been made and rejected was by my
direction subsequently withdrawn and our title to the whole Oregon
Territory asserted, and, as is believed, maintained by irrefragable facts
and arguments.

The civilized world will see in these proceedings a spirit of liberal
concession on the part of the United States, and this Government will be
relieved from all responsibility which may follow the failure to settle the
controversy.

All attempts at compromise having failed, it becomes the duty of Congress
to consider what measures it may be proper to adopt for the security and
protection of our citizens now inhabiting or who may hereafter inhabit
Oregon, and for the maintenance of our just title to that Territory. In
adopting measures for this purpose care should be taken that nothing be
done to violate the stipulations of the convention of 1827, which is still
in force. The faith of treaties, in their letter and spirit, has ever been,
and, I trust, will ever be, scrupulously observed by the United States.
Under that convention a year's notice is required to be given by either
party to the other before the joint occupancy shall terminate and before
either can rightfully assert or exercise exclusive jurisdiction over any
portion of the territory. This notice it would, in my judgment, be proper
to give, and I recommend that provision be made by law for giving it
accordingly, and terminating in this manner the convention of the 6th of
August, 1827.

It will become proper for Congress to determine what legislation they can
in the meantime adopt without violating this convention. Beyond all
question the protection of our laws and our jurisdiction, civil and
criminal, ought to be immediately extended over our citizens in Oregon.
They have had just cause to complain of our long neglect in this
particular, and have in consequence been compelled for their own security
and protection to establish a provisional government for themselves. Strong
in their allegiance and ardent in their attachment to the United States,
they have been thus cast upon their own resources. They are anxious that
our laws should be extended over them, and I recommend that this be done by
Congress with as little delay as possible in the full extent to which the
British Parliament have proceeded in regard to British subjects in that
Territory by their act of July 2, 1821, "for regulating the fur trade and
establishing a criminal and civil jurisdiction within certain parts of
North America." By this act Great Britain extended her laws and
jurisdiction, civil and criminal, over her subjects engaged in the fur
trade in that Territory. By it the courts of the Province of Upper Canada
were empowered to take cognizance of causes civil and criminal. Justices of
the peace and other judicial officers were authorized to be appointed in
Oregon with power to execute all process issuing from the courts of that
Province, and to "sit and hold courts of record for the trial of criminal
offenses and misdemeanors" not made the subject of capital punishment, and
also of civil cases where the cause of action shall not "exceed in value
the amount or sum of lbs. 200."

Subsequent to the date of this act of Parliament a grant was made from the
"British Crown" to the Hudsons Bay Company of the exclusive trade with the
Indian tribes in the Oregon Territory, subject to a reservation that it
shall not operate to the exclusion "of the subjects of any foreign states
who, under or by force of any convention for the time being between us and
such foreign states, respectively, may be entitled to and shall be engaged
in the said trade." It is much to be regretted that while under this act
British subjects have enjoyed the protection of British laws and British
judicial tribunals throughout the whole of Oregon, American citizens in the
same Territory have enjoyed no such protection from their Government. At
the same time, the result illustrates the character of our people and their
institutions. In spite of this neglect they have multiplied, and their
number is rapidly increasing in that Territory. They have made no appeal to
arms, but have peacefully fortified themselves in their new homes by the
adoption of republican institutions for themselves, furnishing another
example of the truth that self-government is inherent in the American
breast and must prevail. It is due to them that they should be embraced and
protected by our laws. It is deemed important that our laws regulating
trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes east of the Rocky Mountains
should be extended to such tribes as dwell beyond them. The increasing
emigration to Oregon and the care and protection which is due from the
Government to its citizens in that distant region make it our duty, as it
is our interest, to cultivate amicable relations with the Indian tribes of
that Territory. For this purpose I recommend that provision be made for
establishing an Indian agency and such subagencies as may be deemed
necessary beyond the Rocky Mountains.

For the protection of emigrants whilst on their way to Oregon against the
attacks of the Indian tribes occupying the country through which they pass,
I recommend that a suitable number of stockades and blockhouse forts be
erected along the usual route between our frontier settlements on the
Missouri and the Rocky Mountains, and that an adequate force of mounted
riflemen be raised to guard and protect them on their journey. The
immediate adoption of these recommendations by Congress will not violate
the provisions of the existing treaty. It will be doing nothing more for
American citizens than British laws have long since done for British
subjects in the same territory.

It requires several months to perform the voyage by sea from the Atlantic
States to Oregon, and although we have a large number of whale ships in the
Pacific, but few of them afford an opportunity of interchanging
intelligence without great delay between our settlements in that distant
region and the United States. An overland mail is believed to be entirely
practicable, and the importance of establishing such a mail at least once a
month is submitted to the favorable consideration of Congress.

It is submitted to the wisdom of Congress to determine whether at their
present session, and until after the expiration of the year's notice, any
other measures may be adopted consistently with the convention of 1827 for
the security of our rights and the government and protection of our
citizens in Oregon. That it will ultimately be wise and proper to make
liberal grants of land to the patriotic pioneers who amidst privations and
dangers lead the way through savage tribes inhabiting the vast wilderness
intervening between our frontier settlements and Oregon, and who cultivate
and are ever ready to defend the soil, I am fully satisfied. To doubt
whether they will obtain such grants as soon as the convention between the
United States and Great Britain shall have ceased to exist would be to
doubt the justice of Congress; but, pending the year's notice, it is worthy
of consideration whether a stipulation to this effect may be made
consistently with the spirit of that convention.

The recommendations which I have made as to the best manner of securing our
rights in Oregon are submitted to Congress with great deference. Should
they in their wisdom devise any other mode better calculated to accomplish
the same object, it shall meet with my hearty concurrence.

At the end of the year's notice, should Congress think it proper to make
provision for giving that notice, we shall have reached a period when the
national rights in Oregon must either be abandoned or firmly maintained.
That they can not be abandoned without a sacrifice of both national honor
and interest is too clear to admit of doubt.

Oregon is a part of the North American continent, to which, it is
confidently affirmed, the title of the United States is the best now in
existence. For the grounds on which that title rests I refer you to the
correspondence of the late and present Secretary of State with the British
plenipotentiary during the negotiation. The British proposition of
compromise, which would make the Columbia the line south of 49 , with a
trifling addition of detached territory to the United States north of that
river, and would leave on the British side two-thirds of the whole Oregon
Territory, including the free navigation of the Columbia and all the
valuable harbors on the Pacific, can never for a moment be entertained by
the United States without an abandonment of their just and dear territorial
rights, their own self-respect, and the national honor. For the information
of Congress, I communicate herewith the correspondence which took place
between the two Governments during the late negotiation.

The rapid extension of our settlements over our territories heretofore
unoccupied, the addition of new States to our Confederacy, the expansion of
free principles, and our rising greatness as a nation are attracting the
attention of the powers of Europe, and lately the doctrine has been
broached in some of them of a "balance of power" on this continent to check
our advancement. The United States, sincerely desirous of preserving
relations of good understanding with all nations, can not in silence permit
any European interference on the North American continent, and should any
such interference be attempted will be ready to resist it at any and all
hazards.

It is well known to the American people and to all nations that this
Government has never interfered with the relations subsisting between other
governments. We have never made ourselves parties to their wars or their
alliances; we have not sought their territories by conquest; we have not
mingled with parties in their domestic struggles; and believing our own
form of government to be the best, we have never attempted to propagate it
by intrigues, by diplomacy, or by force. We may claim on this continent a
like exemption from European interference. The nations of America are
equally sovereign and independent with those of Europe. They possess the
same rights, independent of all foreign interposition, to make war, to
conclude peace, and to regulate their internal affairs. The people of the
United States can not, therefore, view with indifference attempts of
European powers to interfere with the independent action of the nations on
this continent. The American system of government is entirely different
from that of Europe. Jealousy among the different sovereigns of Europe,
lest any one of them might become too powerful for the rest, has caused
them anxiously to desire the establishment of what they term the "balance
of power." It can not be permitted to have any application on the North
American continent, and especially to the United States. We must ever
maintain the principle that the people of this continent alone have the
right to decide their own destiny. Should any portion of them, constituting
an independent state, propose to unite themselves with our Confederacy,
this will be a question for them and us to determine without any foreign
interposition. We can never consent that European powers shall interfere to
prevent such a union because it might disturb the "balance of power" which
they may desire to maintain upon this continent. Near a quarter of a
century ago the principle was distinctly announced to the world, in the
annual message of one of my predecessors, that--

The American continents, by the free and independent condition which they
have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects
for colonization by any European powers.

This principle will apply with greatly increased force should any European
power attempt to establish any new colony in North America. In the existing
circumstances of the world the present is deemed a proper occasion to
reiterate and reaffirm the principle avowed by Mr. Monroe and to state my
cordial concurrence in its wisdom and sound policy. The reassertion of this
principle, especially in reference to North America, is at this day but the
promulgation of a policy which no European power should cherish the
disposition to resist. Existing rights of every European nation should be
respected, but it is due alike to our safety and our interests that the
efficient protection of our laws should be extended over our whole
territorial limits, and that it should be distinctly announced to the world
as our settled policy that no future European colony or dominion shall with
our consent be planted or established on any part of the North American
continent.

A question has recently arisen under the tenth article of the subsisting
treaty between the United States and Prussia. By this article the consuls
of the two countries have the right to sit as judges and arbitrators "in
such differences as may arise between the captains and crews of the vessels
belonging to the nation whose interests are committed to their charge
without the interference of the local authorities, unless the conduct of
the crews or of the captain should disturb the order or tranquillity of the
country, or the said consuls should require their assistance to cause their
decisions to be carried into effect or supported."

The Prussian consul at New Bedford in June, 1844, applied to Mr. Justice
Story to carry into effect a decision made by him between the captain and
crew of the Prussian ship Borussia, but the request was refused on the
ground that without previous legislation by Congress the judiciary did not
possess the power to give effect to this article of the treaty. The
Prussian Government, through their minister here, have complained of this
violation of the treaty, and have asked the Government of the United States
to adopt the necessary measures to prevent similar violations hereafter.
Good faith to Prussia, as well as to other nations with whom we have
similar treaty stipulations, requires that these should be faithfully
observed. I have deemed it proper, therefore, to lay the subject before
Congress and to recommend such legislation as may be necessary to give
effect to these treaty obligations.

By virtue of an arrangement made between the Spanish Government and that of
the United States in December, 1831, American vessels, since the 29th of
April, 1832, have been admitted to entry in the ports of Spain, including
those of the Balearic and Canary islands, on payment of the same tonnage
duty of 5 cents per ton, as though they had been Spanish vessels; and this
whether our vessels arrive in Spain directly from the United States or
indirectly from any other country. When Congress, by the act of 13th July,
1832, gave effect to this arrangement between the two Governments, they
confined the reduction of tonnage duty merely to Spanish vessels "coming
from a port in Spain," leaving the former discriminating duty to remain
against such vessels coming from a port in any other country. It is
manifestly unjust that whilst American vessels arriving in the ports of
Spain from other countries pay no more duty than Spanish vessels, Spanish
vessels arriving in the ports of the United States from other countries
should be subjected to heavy discriminating tonnage duties. This is neither
equality nor reciprocity, and is in violation of the arrangement concluded
in December, 1831, between the two countries. The Spanish Government have
made repeated and earnest remonstrances against this inequality, and the
favorable attention of Congress has been several times invoked to the
subject by my predecessors. I recommend, as an act of justice to Spain,
that this inequality be removed by Congress and that the discriminating
duties which have been levied under the act of the 13th of July, 1832, on
Spanish vessels coming to the United States from any other foreign country
be refunded. This recommendation does not embrace Spanish vessels arriving
in the United States from Cuba and Porto Rico, which will still remain
subject to the provisions of the act of June 30, 1834, concerning tonnage
duty on such vessels. By the act of the 14th of July, 1832, coffee was
exempted from duty altogether. This exemption was universal, without
reference to the country where it was produced or the national character of
the vessel in which it was imported. By the tariff act of the 30th of
August, 1842, this exemption from duty was restricted to coffee imported in
American vessels from the place of its production, whilst coffee imported
under all other circumstances was subjected to a duty of 20 per cent ad
valorem. Under this act and our existing treaty with the King of the
Netherlands Java coffee imported from the European ports of that Kingdom
into the United States, whether in Dutch or American vessels, now pays this
rate of duty. The Government of the Netherlands complains that such a
discriminating duty should have been imposed on coffee the production of
one of its colonies, and which is chiefly brought from Java to the ports of
that Kingdom and exported from thence to foreign countries. Our trade with
the Netherlands is highly beneficial to both countries and our relations
with them have ever been of the most friendly character. Under all the
circumstances of the case, I recommend that this discrimination should be
abolished and that the coffee of Java imported from the Netherlands be
placed upon the same footing with that imported directly from Brazil and
other countries where it is produced.

Under the eighth section of the tariff act of the 30th of August, 1842, a
duty of 15 cents per gallon was imposed on port wine in casks, while on the
red wines of several other countries, when imported in casks, a duty of
only 6 cents per gallon was imposed. This discrimination, so far as
regarded the port wine of Portugal, was deemed a violation of our treaty
with that power, which provides that--

No higher or other duties shall be imposed on the importation into the
United States of America of any article the growth, produce, or manufacture
of the Kingdom and possessions of Portugal than such as are or shall be
payable on the like article being the growth, produce, or manufacture of
any other foreign country.

Accordingly, to give effect to the treaty as well as to the intention of
Congress, expressed in a proviso to the tariff act itself, that nothing
therein contained should be so construed as to interfere with subsisting
treaties with foreign nations, a Treasury circular was issued on the 16th
of July, 1844, which, among other things, declared the duty on the port
wine of Portugal, in casks, under the existing laws and treaty to be 6
cents per gallon, and directed that the excess of duties which had been
collected on such wine should be refunded. By virtue of another clause in
the same section of the act it is provided that all imitations of port or
any other wines "shall be subject to the duty provided for the genuine
article." Imitations of port wine, the production of France, are imported
to some extent into the United States, and the Government of that country
now claims that under a correct construction of the act these imitations
ought not to pay a higher duty than that imposed upon the original port
wine of Portugal. It appears to me to be unequal and unjust that French
imitations of port wine should be subjected to a duty of 15 cents, while
the more valuable article from Portugal should pay a duty of 6 cents only
per gallon. I therefore recommend to Congress such legislation as may be
necessary to correct the inequality.

The late President, in his annual message of December last, recommended an
appropriation to satisfy the claims of the Texan Government against the
United States, which had been previously adjusted so far as the powers of
the Executive extend. These claims arose out of the act of disarming a body
of Texan troops under the command of Major Snively by an officer in the
service of the United States, acting under the orders of our Government,
and the forcible entry into the custom-house at Bryarlys Landing, on Red
River, by certain citizens of the United States and taking away therefrom
the goods seized by the collector of the customs as forfeited under the
laws of Texas. This was a liquidated debt ascertained to be due to Texas
when an independent state. Her acceptance of the terms of annexation
proposed by the United States does not discharge or invalidate the claim. I
recommend that provision be made for its payment.

The commissioner appointed to China during the special session of the
Senate in March last shortly afterwards set out on his mission in the
United States ship Columbus. On arriving at Rio de Janeiro on his passage
the state of his health had become so critical that by the advice of his
medical attendants he returned to the United States early in the month of
October last. Commodore Biddle, commanding the East India Squadron,
proceeded on his voyage in the Columbus, and was charged by the
commissioner with the duty of exchanging with the proper authorities the
ratifications of the treaty lately concluded with the Emperor of China.
Since the return of the commissioner to the United States his health has
been much improved, and he entertains the confident belief that he will
soon be able to proceed on his mission.

Unfortunately, differences continue to exist among some of the nations of
South America which, following our example, have established their
independence, while in others internal dissensions prevail. It is natural
that our sympathies should be warmly enlisted for their welfare; that we
should desire that all controversies between them should be amicably
adjusted and their Governments administered in a manner to protect the
rights and promote the prosperity of their people. It is contrary, however,
to our settled policy to interfere in their controversies, whether external
or internal.

I have thus adverted to all the subjects connected with our foreign
relations to which I deem it necessary to call your attention. Our policy
is not only peace with all, but good will toward all the powers of the
earth. While we are just to all, we require that all shall be just to us.
Excepting the differences with Mexico and Great Britain, our relations with
all civilized nations are of the most satisfactory character. It is hoped
that in this enlightened age these differences may be amicably adjusted.

The Secretary of the Treasury in his annual report to Congress will
communicate a full statement of the condition of our finances. The imports
for the fiscal year ending on the 30th of June last were of the value of
$117,254,564, of which the amount exported was $15,346,830, leaving a
balance of $101,907,734 for domestic consumption. The exports for the same
year were of the value of $114,646,606, of which the amount of domestic
articles was $99,299,776. The receipts into the Treasury during the same
year were $29,769,133.56, of which there were derived from customs
$27,528,122.70, from sales of public lands $2,077,022.30, and from
incidental and miscellaneous sources $163,998.56. The expenditures for the
same period were $29,968,206.98, of which $8,588,157.62 were applied to the
payment of the public debt. The balance in the Treasury on the 1st of July
last was $7,658,306.22. The amount of the public debt remaining unpaid on
the 1st of October last was $17,075,445.52. Further payments of the public
debt would have been made, in anticipation of the period of its
reimbursement under the authority conferred upon the Secretary of the
Treasury by the acts of July 21, 1841, and of April 15, 1842, and March 3,
1843, had not the unsettled state of our relations with Mexico menaced
hostile collision with that power. In view of such a contingency it was
deemed prudent to retain in the Treasury an amount unusually large for
ordinary purposes.

A few years ago our whole national debt growing out of the Revolution and
the War of 1812 with Great Britain was extinguished, and we presented to
the world the rare and noble spectacle of a great and growing people who
had fully discharged every obligation. Since that time the existing debt
has been contracted, and, small as it is in comparison with the similar
burdens of most other nations, it should be extinguished at the earliest
practicable period. Should the state of the country permit, and especially
if our foreign relations interpose no obstacle, it is contemplated to apply
all the moneys in the Treasury as they accrue, beyond what is required for
the appropriations by Congress, to its liquidation. I cherish the hope of
soon being able to congratulate the country on its recovering once more the
lofty position which it so recently occupied. Our country, which exhibits
to the world the benefits of self-government, in developing all the sources
of national prosperity owes to mankind the permanent example of a nation
free from the blighting influence of a public debt.

The attention of Congress is invited to the importance of making suitable
modifications and reductions of the rates of duty imposed by our present
tariff laws. The object of imposing duties on imports should be to raise
revenue to pay the necessary expenses of Government. Congress may
undoubtedly, in the exercise of a sound discretion, discriminate in
arranging the rates of duty on different articles, but the discriminations
should be within the revenue standard and be made with the view to raise
money for the support of Government.

It becomes important to understand distinctly what is meant by a revenue
standard the maximum of which should not be exceeded in the rates of duty
imposed. It is conceded, and experience proves, that duties may be laid so
high as to diminish or prohibit altogether the importation of any given
article, and thereby lessen or destroy the revenue which at lower rates
would be derived from its importation. Such duties exceed the revenue rates
and are not imposed to raise money for the support of Government. If
Congress levy a duty for revenue of 1 per cent on a given article, it will
produce a given amount of money to the Treasury and will incidentally and
necessarily afford protection or advantage to the amount of 1 per cent to
the home manufacturer of a similar or like article over the importer. If
the duty be raised to 10 per cent, it will produce a greater amount of
money and afford greater protection. If it be still raised to 20, 25, or 30
per cent, and if as it is raised the revenue derived from it is found to be
increased, the protection or advantage will also be increased; but if it be
raised to 31 per cent, and it is found that the revenue produced at that
rate is less than at 30 per cent, it ceases to be a revenue duty. The
precise point in the ascending scale of duties at which it is ascertained
from experience that the revenue is greatest is the maximum rate of duty
which can be laid for the bona fide purpose of collecting money for the
support of Government. To raise the duties higher than that point, and
thereby diminish the amount collected, is to levy them for protection
merely, and not for revenue. As long, then, as Congress may gradually
increase the rate of duty on a given article, and the revenue is increased
by such increase of duty, they are within the revenue standard. When they
go beyond that point, and as they increase the duties, the revenue is
diminished or destroyed; the act ceases to have for its object the raising
of money to support Government, but is for protection merely. It does not
follow that Congress should levy the highest duty on all articles of import
which they will bear within the revenue standard, for such rates would
probably produce a much larger amount than the economical administration of
the Government would require. Nor does it follow that the duties on all
articles should be at the same or a horizontal rate. Some articles will
bear a much higher revenue duty than others. Below the maximum of the
revenue standard Congress may and ought to discriminate in the rates
imposed, taking care so to adjust them on different articles as to produce
in the aggregate the amount which, when added to the proceeds of the sales
of public lands, may be needed to pay the economical expenses of the
Government.

In levying a tariff of duties Congress exercise the taxing power, and for
purposes of revenue may select the objects of taxation. They may exempt
certain articles altogether and permit their importation free of duty. On
others they may impose low duties. In these classes should be embraced such
articles of necessity as are in general use, and especially such as are
consumed by the laborer and poor as well as by the wealthy citizen. Care
should be taken that all the great interests of the country, including
manufactures, agriculture, commerce, navigation, and the mechanic arts,
should, as far as may be practicable, derive equal advantages from the
incidental protection which a just system of revenue duties may afford.
Taxation, direct or indirect, is a burden, and it should be so imposed as
to operate as equally as may be on all classes in the proportion of their
ability to bear it. To make the taxing power an actual benefit to one class
necessarily increases the burden of the others beyond their proportion, and
would be manifestly unjust. The terms "protection to domestic industry" are
of popular import, but they should apply under a just system to all the
various branches of industry in our country. The farmer or planter who
toils yearly in his fields is engaged in "domestic industry," and is as
much entitled to have his labor "protected" as the manufacturer, the man of
commerce, the navigator, or the mechanic, who are engaged also in "domestic
industry" in their different pursuits. The joint labors of all these
classes constitute the aggregate of the "domestic industry" of the nation,
and they are equally entitled to the nation's "protection." No one of them
can justly claim to be the exclusive recipient of "protection," which can
only be afforded by increasing burdens on the "domestic industry" of the
others.

If these views be correct, it remains to inquire how far the tariff act of
1842 is consistent with them. That many of the provisions of that act are
in violation of the cardinal principles here laid down all must concede.
The rates of duty imposed by it on some articles are prohibitory and on
others so high as greatly to diminish importations and to produce a less
amount of revenue than would be derived from lower rates. They operate as
"protection merely" to one branch of "domestic industry" by taxing other
branches.

By the introduction of minimums, or assumed and false values, and by the
imposition of specific duties the injustice and inequality of the act of
1842 in its practical operations on different classes and pursuits are seen
and felt. Many of the oppressive duties imposed by it under the operation
of these principles range from 1 per cent to more than 200 per cent. They
are prohibitory on some articles and partially so on others, and bear most
heavily on articles of common necessity and but lightly on articles of
luxury. It is so framed that much the greatest burden which it imposes is
thrown on labor and the poorer classes, who are least able to bear it,
while it protects capital and exempts the rich from paying their just
proportion of the taxation required for the support of Government. While it
protects the capital of the wealthy manufacturer and increases his profits,
it does not benefit the operatives or laborers in his employment, whose
wages have not been increased by it. Articles of prime necessity or of
coarse quality and low price, used by the masses of the people, are in many
instances subjected by it to heavy taxes, while articles of finer quality
and higher price, or of luxury, which can be used only by the opulent, are
lightly taxed. It imposes heavy and unjust burdens on the farmer, the
planter, the commercial man, and those of all other pursuits except the
capitalist who has made his investments in manufactures. All the great
interests of the country are not as nearly as may be practicable equally
protected by it.

The Government in theory knows no distinction of persons or classes, and
should not bestow upon some favors and privileges which all others may not
enjoy. It was the purpose of its illustrious founders to base the
institutions which they reared upon the great and unchanging principles of
justice and equity, conscious that if administered in the spirit in which
they were conceived they would be felt only by the benefits which they
diffused, and would secure for themselves a defense in the hearts of the
people more powerful than standing armies and all the means and appliances
invented to sustain governments founded in injustice and oppression.

The well-known fact that the tariff act of 1842 was passed by a majority of
one vote in the Senate and two in the House of Representatives, and that
some of those who felt themselves constrained, under the peculiar
circumstances existing at the time, to vote in its favor, proclaimed its
defects and expressed their determination to aid in its modification on the
first opportunity, affords strong and conclusive evidence that it was not
intended to be permanent, and of the expediency and necessity of its
thorough revision.

In recommending to Congress a reduction of the present rates of duty and a
revision and modification of the act of 1842, I am far from entertaining
opinions unfriendly to the manufacturers. On the contrary, I desire to see
them prosperous as far as they can be so without imposing unequal burdens
on other interests. The advantage under any system of indirect taxation,
even within the revenue standard, must be in favor of the manufacturing
interest, and of this no other interest will complain.

I recommend to Congress the abolition of the minimum principle, or assumed,
arbitrary, and false values, and of specific duties, and the substitution
in their place of ad valorem duties as the fairest and most equitable
indirect tax which can be imposed. By the ad valorem principle all articles
are taxed according to their cost or value, and those which are of inferior
quality or of small cost bear only the just proportion of the tax with
those which are of superior quality or greater cost. The articles consumed
by all are taxed at the same rate. A system of ad valorem revenue duties,
with proper discriminations and proper guards against frauds in collecting
them, it is not doubted will afford ample incidental advantages to the
manufacturers and enable them to derive as great profits as can be derived
from any other regular business. It is believed that such a system strictly
within the revenue standard will place the manufacturing interests on a
stable footing and inure to their permanent advantage, while it will as
nearly as may be practicable extend to all the great interests of the
country the incidental protection which can be afforded by our revenue
laws. Such a system, when once firmly established, would be permanent, and
not be subject to the constant complaints, agitations, and changes which
must ever occur when duties are not laid for revenue, but for the
"protection merely" of a favored interest.

In the deliberations of Congress on this subject it is hoped that a spirit
of mutual concession and compromise between conflicting interests may
prevail, and that the result of their labors may be crowned with the
happiest consequences.

By the Constitution of the United States it is provided that "no money
shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made
by law." A public treasury was undoubtedly contemplated and intended to be
created, in which the public money should be kept from the period of
collection until needed for public uses. In the collection and disbursement
of the public money no agencies have ever been employed by law except such
as were appointed by the Government, directly responsible to it and under
its control. The safe-keeping of the public money should be confided to a
public treasury created by law and under like responsibility and control.
It is not to be imagined that the framers of the Constitution could have
intended that a treasury should be created as a place of deposit and
safe-keeping of the public money which was irresponsible to the Government.
The first Congress under the Constitution, by the act of the 2d of
September, 1789, "to establish the Treasury Department," provided for the
appointment of a Treasurer, and made it his duty "to receive and keep the
moneys of the United States" and "at all times to submit to the Secretary
of the Treasury and the Comptroller, or either of them, the inspection of
the moneys in his hands."

That banks, national or State, could not have been intended to be used as a
substitute for the Treasury spoken of in the Constitution as keepers of the
public money is manifest from the fact that at that time there was no
national bank, and but three or four State banks, of limited Capital,
existed in the country. Their employment as depositories was at first
resorted to to a limited extent, but with no avowed intention of continuing
them permanently in place of the Treasury of the Constitution. When they
were afterwards from time to time employed, it was from motives of supposed
convenience. Our experience has shown that when banking corporations have
been the keepers of the public money, and been thereby made in effect the
Treasury, the Government can have no guaranty that it can command the use
of its own money for public purposes. The late Bank of the United States
proved to be faithless. The State banks which were afterwards employed were
faithless. But a few years ago, with millions of public money in their
keeping, the Government was brought almost to bankruptcy and the public
credit seriously impaired because of their inability or indisposition to
pay on demand to the public creditors in the only currency recognized by
the Constitution. Their failure occurred in a period of peace, and great
inconvenience and loss were suffered by the public from it. Had the country
been involved in a foreign war, that inconvenience and loss would have been
much greater, and might have resulted in extreme public calamity. The
public money should not be mingled with the private funds of banks or
individuals or be used for private purposes. When it is placed in banks for
safe-keeping, it is in effect loaned to them without interest, and is
loaned by them upon interest to the borrowers from them. The public money
is converted into banking capital, and is used and loaned out for the
private profit of bank stockholders, and when called for, as was the case
in 1837, it may be in the pockets of the borrowers from the banks instead
of being in the public Treasury contemplated by the Constitution. The
framers of the Constitution could never have intended that the money paid
into the Treasury should be thus converted to private use and placed beyond
the control of the Government.

Banks which hold the public money are often tempted by a desire of gain to
extend their loans, increase their circulation, and thus stimulate, if not
produce, a spirit of speculation and extravagance which sooner or later
must result in ruin to thousands. If the public money be not permitted to
be thus used, but be kept in the Treasure and paid out to the public
creditors in gold and silver, the temptation afforded by its deposit with
banks to an undue expansion of their business would be checked, while the
amount of the constitutional currency left in circulation would be enlarged
by its employment in the public collections and disbursements, and the
banks themselves would in consequence be found in a safer and sounder
condition. At present State banks are employed as depositories, but without
adequate regulation of law whereby the public money can be secured against
the casualties and excesses, revulsions, suspensions, and defalcations to
which from overissues, overtrading, an inordinate desire for gain, or other
causes they are constantly exposed. The Secretary of the Treasury has in
all cases when it was practicable taken collateral security for the amount
which they hold, by the pledge of stocks of the United States or such of
the States as were in good credit. Some of the deposit banks have given
this description of security and others have declined to do so.

Entertaining the opinion that "the separation of the moneys of the
Government from banking institutions is indispensable for the safety of the
funds of the Government and the rights of the people," I recommend to
Congress that provision be made by law for such separation, and that a
constitutional treasury be created for the safe-keeping of the public
money. The constitutional treasury recommended is designed as a secure
depository for the public money, without any power to make loans or
discounts or to issue any paper whatever as a currency or circulation. I
can not doubt that such a treasury as was contemplated by the Constitution
should be independent of all banking corporations. The money of the people
should be kept in the Treasury of the people created by law, and be in the
custody of agents of the people chosen by themselves according to the forms
of the Constitution--agents who are directly responsible to the Government,
who are under adequate bonds and oaths, and who are subject to severe
punishments for any embezzlement, private use, or misapplication of the
public funds, and for any failure in other respects to perform their
duties. To say that the people or their Government are incompetent or not
to be trusted with the custody of their own money in their own Treasury,
provided by themselves, but must rely on the presidents, cashiers, and
stockholders of banking corporations, not appointed by them nor responsible
to them, would be to concede that they are incompetent for
self-government.

In recommending the establishment of a constitutional treasury in which the
public money shall be kept, I desire that adequate provision be made by law
for its safety and that all Executive discretion or control over it shall
be removed, except such as may be necessary in directing its disbursement
in pursuance of appropriations made by law.

Under our present land system, limiting the minimum price at which the
public lands can be entered to $1.25 per acre, large quantities of lands of
inferior quality remain unsold because they will not command that price.
From the records of the General Land Office it appears that of the public
lands remaining unsold in the several States and Territories in which they
are situated, 39,105,577 acres have been in the market subject to entry
more than twenty years, 49,638,644 acres for more than fifteen years,
73,074,600 acres for more than ten years, and 106,176,961 acres for more
than five years. Much the largest portion of these lands will continue to
be unsalable at the minimum price at which they are permitted to be sold so
long as large territories of lands from which the more valuable portions
have not been selected are annually brought into market by the Government.
With the view to the sale and settlement of these inferior lands, I
recommend that the price be graduated and reduced below the present minimum
rate, confining the sales at the reduced prices to settlers and
cultivators, in limited quantities. If graduated and reduced in price for a
limited term to $1 per acre, and after the expiration of that period for a
second and third term to lower rates, a large portion of these lands would
be purchased, and many worthy citizens who are unable to pay higher rates
could purchase homes for themselves and their families. By adopting the
policy of graduation and reduction of price these inferior lands will be
sold for their real value, while the States in which they lie will be freed
from the inconvenience, if not injustice, to which they are subjected in
consequence of the United States continuing to own large quantities of the
public lands within their borders not liable to taxation for the support of
their local governments.

I recommend the continuance of the policy of granting preemptions in its
most liberal extent to all those who have settled or may hereafter settle
on the public lands, whether surveyed or unsurveyed, to which the Indian
title may have been extinguished at the time of settlement. It has been
found by experience that in consequence of combinations of purchasers and
other causes a very small quantity of the public lands, when sold at public
auction, commands a higher price than the minimum rates established by law.
The settlers on the public lands are, however, but rarely able to secure
their homes and improvements at the public sales at that rate, because
these combinations, by means of the capital they command and their superior
ability to purchase, render it impossible for the settler to compete with
them in the market. By putting down all competition these combinations of
capitalists and speculators are usually enabled to purchase the lands,
including the improvements of the settlers, at the minimum price of the
Government, and either turn them out of their homes or extort from them,
according to their ability to pay, double or quadruple the amount paid for
them to the Government. It is to the enterprise and perseverance of the
hardy pioneers of the West, who penetrate the wilderness with their
families, suffer the dangers, the privations, and hardships attending the
settlement of a new country, and prepare the way for the body of emigrants
who in the course of a few years usually follow them, that we are in a
great degree indebted for the rapid extension and aggrandizement of our
country.

Experience has proved that no portion of our population are more patriotic
than the hardy and brave men of the frontier, or more ready to obey the
call of their country and to defend her rights and her honor whenever and
by whatever enemy assailed. They should be protected from the grasping
speculator and secured, at the minimum price of the public lands, in the
humble homes which they have improved by their labor. With this end in
view, all vexatious or unnecessary restrictions imposed upon them by the
existing preemption laws should be repealed or modified. It is the true
policy of the Government to afford facilities to its citizens to become the
owners of small portions of our vast public domain at low and moderate
rates.

The present system of managing the mineral lands of the United States is
believed to be radically defective. More than 1,000,000 acres of the public
lands, supposed to contain lead and other minerals, have been reserved from
sale, and numerous leases upon them have been granted to individuals upon a
stipulated rent. The system of granting leases has proved to be not only
unprofitable to the Government, but unsatisfactory to the citizens who have
gone upon the lands, and must, if continued, lay the foundation of much
future difficulty between the Government and the lessees. According to the
official records, the amount of rents received by the Government for the
years 1841, 1842, 1843, and 1844 was $6,354.74, while the expenses of the
system during the same period, including salaries of superintendents,
agents, clerks, and incidental expenses, were $26,111.11, the income being
less than one-fourth of the expenses. To this pecuniary loss may be added
the injury sustained by the public in consequence of the destruction of
timber and the careless and wasteful manner of working the mines. The
system has given rise to much litigation between the United States and
individual citizens, producing irritation and excitement in the mineral
region, and involving the Government in heavy additional expenditures. It
is believed that similar losses and embarrassments will continue to occur
while the present System of leasing these lands remains unchanged. These
lands are now under the superintendence and care of the War Department,
with the ordinary duties of which they have no proper or natural
connection. I recommend the repeal of the present system, and that these
lands be placed under the superintendence and management of the General
Land Office, as other public lands, and be brought into market and sold
upon such terms as Congress in their wisdom may prescribe, reserving to the
Government an equitable percentage of the gross amount of mineral product,
and that the preemption principle be extended to resident miners and
settlers upon them at the minimum price which may be established by
Congress.

I refer you to the accompanying report of the Secretary of War for
information respecting the present situation of the Army and its operations
during the past year, the state of our defenses, the condition of the
public works, and our relations with the various Indian tribes within our
limits or upon our borders. I invite your attention to the suggestions
contained in that report in relation to these prominent objects of national
interest. When orders were given during the past summer for concentrating a
military force on the western frontier of Texas, our troops were widely
dispersed and in small detachments, occupying posts remote from each other.
The prompt and expeditious manner in which an army embracing more than half
our peace establishment was drawn together on an emergency so sudden
reflects great credit on the officers who were intrusted with the execution
of these orders, as well as upon the discipline of the Army itself. To be
in strength to protect and defend the people and territory of Texas in the
event Mexico should commence hostilities or invade her territories with a
large army, which she threatened, I authorized the general assigned to the
command of the army of occupation to make requisitions for additional
forces from several of the States nearest the Texan territory, and which
could most expeditiously furnish them, if in his opinion a larger force
than that under his command and the auxiliary aid which under like
circumstances he was authorized to receive from Texas should be required.
The contingency upon which the exercise of this authority depended has not
occurred. The circumstances under which two companies of State artillery
from the city of New Orleans were sent into Texas and mustered into the
service of the United States are fully stated in the report of the
Secretary of War. I recommend to Congress that provision be made for the
payment of these troops, as well as a small number of Texan volunteers whom
the commanding general thought it necessary to receive or muster into our
service.

During the last summer the First Regiment of Dragoons made extensive
excursions through the Indian country on our borders, a part of them
advancing nearly to the possessions of the Hudsons Bay Company in the
north, and a part as far as the South Pass of the Rocky Mountains and the
head waters of the tributary streams of the Colorado of the West. The
exhibition of this military force among the Indian tribes in those distant
regions and the councils held with them by the commanders of the
expeditions, it is believed, will have a salutary influence in restraining
them from hostilities among themselves and maintaining friendly relations
between them and the United States. An interesting account of one of these
excursions accompanies the report of the Secretary of War. Under the
directions of the War Department Brevet Captain Fremont, of the Corps of
Topographical Engineers, has been employed since 1842 in exploring the
country west of the Mississippi and beyond the Rocky Mountains. Two
expeditions have already been brought to a close, and the reports of that
scientific and enterprising officer have furnished much interesting and
valuable information. He is now engaged in a third expedition, but it is
not expected that this arduous service will be completed in season to
enable me to communicate the result to Congress at the present session.

Our relations with the Indian tribes are of a favorable character. The
policy of removing them to a country designed for their permanent residence
west of the Mississippi, and without the limits of the organized States and
Territories, is better appreciated by them than it was a few years ago,
while education is now attended to and the habits of civilized life are
gaining ground among them.

Serious difficulties of long standing continue to distract the several
parties into which the Cherokees are unhappily divided. The efforts of the
Government to adjust the difficulties between them have heretofore proved
unsuccessful, and there remains no probability that this desirable object
can be accomplished without the aid of further legislation by Congress. I
will at an early period of your session present the subject for your
consideration, accompanied with an exposition of the complaints and claims
of the several parties into which the nation is divided, with a view to the
adoption of such measures by Congress as may enable the Executive to do
justice to them, respectively, and to put an end, if possible, to the
dissensions which have long prevailed and still prevail among them.

I refer you to the report of the Secretary of the Navy for the present
condition of that branch of the national defense and for grave suggestions
having for their object the increase of its efficiency and a greater
economy in its management. During the past year the officers and men have
performed their duty in a satisfactory manner. The orders which have been
given have been executed with promptness and fidelity. A larger force than
has often formed one squadron under our flag was readily concentrated in
the Gulf of Mexico, and apparently without unusual effort. It is especially
to be observed that notwithstanding the union of so considerable a force,
no act was committed that even the jealousy of an irritated power could
construe as an act of aggression, and that the commander of the squadron
and his officers, in strict conformity with their instructions, holding
themselves ever ready for the most active duty, have achieved the still
purer glory of contributing to the preservation of peace. It is believed
that at all our foreign stations the honor of our flag has been maintained
and that generally our ships of war have been distinguished for their good
discipline and order. I am happy to add that the display of maritime force
which was required by the events of the summer has been made wholly within
the usual appropriations for the service of the year, so that no additional
appropriations are required.

The commerce of the United States, and with it the navigating interests,
have steadily and rapidly increased since the organization of our
Government, until, it is believed, we are now second to but one power in
the world, and at no distant day we shall probably be inferior to none.
Exposed as they must be, it has been a wise policy to afford to these
important interests protection with our ships of war distributed in the
great highways of trade throughout the world. For more than thirty years
appropriations have been made and annually expended for the gradual
increase of our naval forces. In peace our Navy performs the important duty
of protecting our commerce, and in the event of war will be, as it has
been, a most efficient means of defense.

The successful use of steam navigation on the ocean has been followed by
the introduction of war steamers in great and increasing numbers into the
navies of the principal maritime powers of the world. A due regard to our
own safety and to an efficient protection to our large and increasing
commerce demands a corresponding increase on our part. No country has
greater facilities for the construction of vessels of this description than
ours, or can promise itself greater advantages from their employment. They
are admirably adapted to the protection of our commerce, to the rapid
transmission of intelligence, and to the coast defense. In pursuance of the
wise policy of a gradual increase of our Navy, large supplies of live-oak
timber and other materials for shipbuilding have been collected and are now
under shelter and in a state of good preservation, while iron steamers can
be built with great facility in various parts of the Union. The use of iron
as a material, especially in the construction of steamers which can enter
with safety many of the harbors along our coast now inaccessible to vessels
of greater draft, and the practicability of constructing them in the
interior, strongly recommend that liberal appropriations should be made for
this important object. Whatever may have been our policy in the earlier
stages of the Government, when the nation was in its infancy, our shipping
interests and commerce comparatively small, our resources limited, our
population sparse and scarcely extending beyond the limits of the original
thirteen States, that policy must be essentially different now that we have
grown from three to more than twenty millions of people, that our commerce,
carried in our own ships, is found in every sea, and that our territorial
boundaries and settlements have been so greatly expanded. Neither our
commerce nor our long line of coast on the ocean and on the Lakes can be
successfully defended against foreign aggression by means of fortifications
alone. These are essential at important commercial and military points, but
our chief reliance for this object must be on a well-organized, efficient
navy. The benefits resulting from such a navy are not confined to the
Atlantic States. The productions of the interior which seek a market abroad
are directly dependent on the safety and freedom of our commerce. The
occupation of the Balize below New Orleans by a hostile force would
embarrass, if not stagnate, the whole export trade of the Mississippi and
affect the value of the agricultural products of the entire valley of that
mighty river and its tributaries.

It has never been our policy to maintain large standing armies in time of
peace. They are contrary to the genius of our free institutions, would
impose heavy burdens on the people and be dangerous to public liberty. Our
reliance for protection and defense on the land must be mainly on our
citizen soldiers, who will be ever ready, as they ever have been ready in
times past, to rush with alacrity, at the call of their country, to her
defense. This description of force, however, can not defend our coast,
harbors, and inland seas, nor protect our commerce on the ocean or the
Lakes. These must be protected by our Navy.

Considering an increased naval force, and especially of steam vessels,
corresponding with our growth and importance as a nation, and proportioned
to the increased and increasing naval power of other nations, of vast
importance as regards our safety, and the great and growing interests to be
protected by it, I recommend the subject to the favorable consideration of
Congress.

The report of the Postmaster-General herewith communicated contains a
detailed statement of the operations of his Department during the pass
year. It will be seen that the income from postages will fall short of the
expenditures for the year between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000. This
deficiency has been caused by the reduction of the rates of postage, which
was made by the act of the 3d of March last. No principle has been more
generally acquiesced in by the people than that this Department should
sustain itself by limiting its expenditures to its income. Congress has
never sought to make it a source of revenue for general purposes except for
a short period during the last war with Great Britain, nor should it ever
become a charge on the general Treasury. If Congress shall adhere to this
principle, as I think they ought, it will be necessary either to curtail
the present mail service so as to reduce the expenditures, or so to modify
the act of the 3d of March last as to improve its revenues. The extension
of the mail service and the additional facilities which will be demanded by
the rapid extension and increase of population on our western frontier will
not admit of such curtailment as will materially reduce the present
expenditures. In the adjustment of the tariff of postages the interests of
the people demand that the lowest rates be adopted which will produce the
necessary revenue to meet the expenditures of the Department. I invite the
attention of Congress to the suggestions of the Postmaster-General on this
subject, under the belief that such a modification of the late law may be
made as will yield sufficient revenue without further calls on the
Treasury, and with very little change in the present rates of postage.
Proper measures have been taken in pursuance of the act of the 3d of March
last for the establishment of lines of mail steamers between this and
foreign countries. The importance of this service commends itself strongly
to favorable consideration.

With the growth of our country the public business which devolves on the
heads of the several Executive Departments has greatly increased. In some
respects the distribution of duties among them seems to be incongruous, and
many of these might be transferred from one to another with advantage to
the public interests. A more auspicious time for the consideration of this
subject by Congress, with a view to system in the organization of the
several Departments and a more appropriate division of the public business,
will not probably occur.

The most important duties of the State Department relate to our foreign
affairs. By the great enlargement of the family of nations, the increase of
our commerce, and the corresponding extension of our consular system the
business of this Department has been greatly increased. In its present
organization many duties of a domestic nature and consisting of details are
devolved on the Secretary of State, which do not appropriately belong to
the foreign department of the Government and may properly be transferred to
some other Department. One of these grows out of the present state of the
law concerning the Patent Office, which a few years since was a subordinate
clerkship, but has become a distinct bureau of great importance. With an
excellent internal organization, it is still connected with the State
Department. In the transaction of its business questions of much importance
to inventors and to the community frequently arise, which by existing laws
are referred for decision to a board of which the Secretary of State is a
member. These questions are legal, and the connection which now exists
between the State Department and the Patent Office may with great propriety
and advantage be transferred to the Attorney-General.

In his last annual message to Congress Mr. Madison invited attention to a
proper provision for the Attorney-General as "an important improvement in
the executive establishment." This recommendation was repeated by some of
his successors. The official duties of the Attorney-General have been much
increased within a few years, and his office has become one of great
importance. His duties may be still further increased with advantage to the
public interests. As an executive officer his residence and constant
attention at the seat of Government are required. Legal questions involving
important principles and large amounts of public money are constantly
referred to him by the President and Executive Departments for his
examination and decision. The public business under his official management
before the judiciary has been so augmented by the extension of our
territory and the acts of Congress authorizing suits against the United
States for large bodies of valuable public lands as greatly to increase his
labors and responsibilities. I therefore recommend that the
Attorney-General be placed on the same footing with the heads of the other
Executive Departments, with such subordinate officers provided by law for
his Department as may be required to discharge the additional duties which
have been or may be devolved upon him.

Congress possess the power of exclusive legislation over the District of
Columbia, and I commend the interests of its inhabitants to your favorable
consideration. The people of this District have no legislative body of
their own, and must confide their local as well as their general interests
to representatives in whose election they have no voice and over whose
official conduct they have no control. Each member of the National
Legislature should consider himself as their immediate representative, and
should be the more ready to give attention to their interests and wants
because he is not responsible to them. I recommend that a liberal and
generous spirit may characterize your measures in relation to them. I shall
be ever disposed to show a proper regard for their wishes and, within
constitutional limits, shall at all times cheerfully cooperate with you for
the advancement of their welfare.

I trust it may not be deemed inappropriate to the occasion for me to dwell
for a moment on the memory of the most eminent citizen of our country who
during the summer that is gone by has descended to the tomb. The enjoyment
of contemplating, at the advanced age of near fourscore years, the happy
condition of his country cheered the last hours of Andrew Jackson, who
departed this life in the tranquil hope of a blessed immortality. His death
was happy, as his life had been eminently useful. He had an unfaltering
confidence in the virtue and capacity of the people and in the permanence
of that free Government which he had largely contributed to establish and
defend. His great deeds had secured to him the affections of his
fellow-citizens, and it was his happiness to witness the growth and glory
of his country, which he loved so well. He departed amidst the benedictions
of millions of free-men. The nation paid its tribute to his memory at his
tomb. Coming generations will learn from his example the love of country
and the rights of man. In his language on a similar occasion to the
present, "I now commend you, fellow-citizens, to the guidance of Almighty
God, with a full reliance on His merciful providence for the maintenance of
our free institutions, and with an earnest supplication that whatever
errors it may be my lot to commit in discharging the arduous duties which
have devolved on me will find a remedy in the harmony and wisdom of your
counsels."

JAMES K. POLK