The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-01 00:00:00

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE.

The subjoined Message was sent to Congress this morning
by the President of the United States.
It will be seen by our readers that certain information
(never yet published) was transmitted by the President to
the Senate, some time since, in relation to the designs of
Great Britain en Texas, and which was before that body
when they rejected the Treaty.
Our readers, and the people of the whole Union, will
doubtless read this message with unusual interest, for it de-
mands their serious attention.

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES.

To the House of Representatives of the United States :
The Treaty negotiated by the Executive with the Republic
of Texas, without a departure from any form of proceeding
customarily observed in the negotiation of treaties, for the
annexation of that Republic to the United States having
been rejected by the Senate, and the subject having excited
on the part of the people no ordinary degree of interest, I feel
it to be my duty to communicate, for your consideration, the
rejected treaty, together with all the correspondence and docu-
ments which have heretofore been submitted to the Senate in its
Executive sessions. The papers communicated embrace not
only the series already made public by order of the
Senate, but others from which the veil of secrecy has not
been removed by that body, but which I deem to be essen-
tial to a just appreciation of the entire question. While the
treaty was pending before the Senate, 1 did not consider it
incompatible with the just rights of that body, or consistent
with the respect entertained for it, to bring this important
subject before you.. The power of Congress is, however, fully
competent, in some other form of proceeding, to accomplish
every thing that a formal ratification of the treaty could have
accomplished ; and I therefore feel that I should but imper-
fectly discharge my duty to yourselves or the country, if I
failed to lay before you every thing in the possession of the
Executive which would enable you to act with full light on
the subject, if you should deem it proper to take any action
upon it.
I regard the question involved in these proceedings as one
of vast magnitude, and addressing itself to interests of an
elevated and enduring character. A republic coterminous
in territory with our own—of immense resources, which re-
quire only to be brought under the influence of our confede-
rate and free system in order to be fully developed—pro-
mising at no distant day, through the fertility of its soil,
nearly, if not entirely, to duplicate the exports of the
country, thereby making an addition to the carrying
trade to an amount almost incalculable, and giving
a new impulse of immense importance to the com-
mercial, manufacturing, agricultural, and shipping in-
terests of the Union, and at the same time af-
fording protection to an exposed frontier, and placing the
whole country in a condition of security and repose—a terri-
tory settled mostly by emigrants from the United States,
who will bring back with them in the act of reciprocation
an unconqueiable love of freedom and an ardent attachment
to our free iristittftions. Such a question could not fail to in-
terest most deeply in its success, those who under the Con-
stitution have become.responsible for the faithful administra-
tion of public. affairs, ..I.laave regarded it as not a little for-
tunate that the 'question involved was no way sectional or
local, but addresied.itse/f to the interests of every part of the
country, and mit& its.way to the glory of the American
name.
It is due to the occasion to say, that I have carefully re-
considered the objections which have been urged to imme-
diate action upon the subject, without in any degree having
been struck with their force. It has been objected that the
measure of annexation should be preceded by the consent of
Mexico. To preserve the most friendly relations with
Mexico; to concede to her not grudgingly but freely all her
rights ; to negotiate fairly and frankly with her as to the
question of boundary; to render her, in a word, the fullest
and most ample recompense for any loss she might convince
us she had sustained, fully accords with the feelings and
views the Executive has always entertained.
But negotiations in advance of annexation would prove
not only abortive, but might be regarded as offensive to
Mexico, and insulting to Texas. Mexico would not, lam
persuaded, give ear for a moment to an attempt at negotia-
tion in advance, except for the whole territory of Texas.
While all the world besides regards Texas as an indepen-
dent power, Mexico chooses to look upon her as a re-
volted province. Nor could we negotiate with Mexico
for Texas, without admitting that our recognition of
her independence was fraudulent, delusive, or void. It
is only after acquiring Texas, that the question of
boundary can arise between the United States and
Mexico, a question purposely left open for negotiation
with Mexico, as affording the best opportunity for the most
friendly and pacific arrangements. The Executive has dealt
with Texas as a Power independent of all others, both de
facto and de jure. She was an independent State of the
Confederation of Mexican Republics. When, by violent re-
volution, Mexico declared the Confederation at an end,
Texas owed her no allegiance, but claimed, and has main-
tained the right for eight years to a separate and. distinct
position. During that time no army has invaded her with a
view to her conquest, and if she has not yet established her
right to be treated as a nation independent (4
,facto and de
jure, it would be difficult -to say at what period she will at-
tain to that condition.
Nor can we, by any fair or legitimate inference, be accused
of violating any treaty stipulations with Mexico. The treaties
with Mexico gave no guarantee of any sort, and are co-exist-
ent with a similar treaty with Texas. So have we treaties
with most of the nations of the earth, which are equally as
much violated by the annexation of Texas to the United
States, as they would by our treaty with Mexico. The treaty
is merely commercial, and intended as the instrument for
more accurately defining the rights and securing the in-
terests of the citizens of each country. What bad faith can
be implied or charged upon the Government of the United
States, for successfully negociating with an independent
power, upon any subject not violating the stipulations of sit..ll
treaty, I confess my inability to discern.
The objections which have been taken to the enlargement
of our territory were urged with much zeal against the acqui-
sition of Louisiana—and yet the futility of such has long since
been fully demonstrated. Since that period anew Power has
been introduced into the affairs of the world, which has, for all
practical purposes, brought Texas much nearer to the seat of
Government than Louisiana was at the time of its annexation.
Distant regions are, by the application of the steam-engine,
brought within a close proximity.
With the views which I entertain on the subject, I should
prove faithless to the high trust which the Constitution has
devolved upon me, if it neglected to invite the attention of
the Representatives of the people to it, at the earliest mo-
ment that a due respect for the Senate would allow me so to
do. I should find, in the urgency of the matter, a sufficient
apology, if one was wanting, since annexation is to encounter
a great if not certain hazard of final defeat, if something be
not now done to prevent it. Upon this point, I cannot too
impressively invite your attention to my Message of the
16th May, and to the documents which accompany it,
which have not heretofore been made public. If it be ob-
jected that the names of the writers of some of the private
letters are withheld, all that I can say is, that it is done for
reasons regarded as altogether adequate, and that the writers
are persons of the first respectability, and citizens of Texas,
and have such means of obtaining information as to entitle
their sentiments to full credit. Nor has anything occurred
to weaken, but, on the contrary, much to confirm my confi-
dence in the statements of General Jackson, and my own
statement made at the close of that message, in the belief,
amounting almost to certainty, "that instructions have al-
ready been given by the Texian Government, to propose to
the Government of Great Britain, forthwith, on the failure of
the treaty, to enter into a treaty of commerce and alliance,
offensive and defensive."
. _ _

I also particularly invite your attention to the letter from
Mr. Everett, our Envoy at London, containing an account
of a conversation in the House of Lords which lately occurred
between Lord Brougham and Lord Aberdeen, in relation to
the question of annexation. Nor can I do so without the
expression of some surprise at the language the Minister
of Foreign Affairs employed upon the occasion.
That a kingdom which is made what it now is by re-
peated acts of annexation, beginning from the time
of the Heptarchy, and concluding with the annexa-
tion of the kingdoms of 'lreland and Scotland, should per-
ceive any principle, either novel or serious, in the late pro-
ceedings of the American Executive in regard to Texas, is
well calculated to excite surprise. If it be pretended that,
because of commercial or political relations which may
exist between the two countries, neither has a right to
part with its sovereignty, and • that no third Power can
change those' relations by a voluntary treaty. of union
or annexation, then it- .would' • seem to follow that art
annexation to be achieved by force of arms, in the pro-
secution of a jest and necessary war, could in no way bejus-
tified ; and yet it is presumed that Great Britain would be
the last nation in the world to maintain any such doctrine.
The commercial and political relations of many of the countries
of Europe have undergone • repeated changes by voluntary
treaties, by conquest, and by partitions of their territories,
without any question as to the right, under the public law.
The question, in this view of it, can be considered as neither
serious nor novel.

I will not permit myself to believe that the British Mi-
nister designed to-bring himself to any such conclusion; but
it is impossible for us to be blind to the fact, that the state-
ments contained in- Mr. Everett's dispatch are well worthy of
serious consideration. The Government and people of the
United States have never evinced, nor do they feel, any de-
sire to interfere in public questions not affecting the relations
existing between-the States of the American Continent.
We leave the- European Powers exclusive control, over
matters affecting their Continent and the relations of their
different States. '

The United States claim .a similar exemption from any
such interference on their part. The treaty with Texas was
negotiated from considerations of a high public policy, influ-
encing the conduct of the two Republics. We have treated
with Texas as an independent Power, solely with a view of
bettering the condition of the two countries. If annexation
in any form occur, it will arise from the free and un-
fettered action of the people of the two countries; and it
seems altogether becoming in me to say. that the honour of
the country, the dignity of the American name, and the
permanent interests of the United States, would forbid ac-
quiescence in any such interference. No man can more
highly appreciate the value of peace to both Great Britain
and the United States, and the capacity of each to do injury
to the other, than myself; but peace can best be preserved
by maintaining firmly the rights which belong to us, as an
independent community. •

So much I have considered it proper for me to say, and
it becomes me only to add, that while I have regarded the
annexation to be accomplished by treaty as the most suitable
form in which it could be effected, should Congress deem it
proper to resort to any other expedient compatible with the
Constitution, and likely to accomplish the object, I stand pre-
pared to yield my most prompt and 'active co-operation.
The great question is not as to the manner in which it
shall be done,: but whether-it -shall be accomplished or not.
Thei•esiionsibility of deciding thitquestion 4.4 new devolved
upon you. JOHN TYLER.
Washington, June 10, 1844.