Source: http://www.fulltextarchive.com/page/A-Compilation-of-the-Messages-and-Papers-of4/
Timestamp: 2017-05-26 05:43:46
Document Index: 122594263

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 4', 'art 4', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 3', 'art 3']

A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents by James D. Richardson - Full Text Free Book (Part 4/9)
Part 4 out of 9HomeIndex of A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the PresidentsPrevious part (3)Next part (5) Download this document as a .pdf
A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents Volume 8, part 3: Grover Cleveland, First TermA Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents - Volume 8, part 2: Chester A. ArthurA Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents - Volume 6, part 1: Abraham LincolnA Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents - Volume 4, part 1: William Henry HarrisonA Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents - Volume 4, part 2: John TylerA Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents - Volume 3, part 1: Andrew Jackson (Second Term)A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents - Volume 7, part 1: Ulysses S. GrantA Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents - Volume 1, part 1: George WashingtonA Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents - Volume 2, part 3: Andrew Jackson, 1st termA Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents - Volume 1, part 3: Thomas Jeffersongrades than those which they held before the reduction, and Captain Cobbfrom being disbanded under the act. These circumstances were consideredas constituting an extraordinary case within the meaning of the sectionalready referred to of the Regulations of the Army. It is, however,submitted to the Senate whether this is a case requiring theirconfirmation; and in case that such should be their opinion, it issubmitted to them for their constitutional confirmation.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _January 20, 1822_._To the House of Representatives_:In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives"requesting the President of the United States to cause to be laidbefore this House an account of the expenditures made under the act toprovide for the civilization of the Indian tribes, specifying the timeswhen, the persons to whom, and the particular purpose for which suchexpenditures have been made," I herewith transmit a report from theSecretary of War.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _January 28, 1822_._To the House of Representatives_:In compliance with the resolution of the 2d instant, I transmit a reportof the Secretary of State, with all the documents relating to themisunderstanding between Andrew Jackson, while acting as governor ofthe Floridas, and Eligius Fromentin, judge of a court therein; and alsoof the correspondence between the Secretary of State and the ministerplenipotentiary of His Catholic Majesty on certain proceedings in thatTerritory in execution of the powers vested in the governor by theExecutive under the law of the last session for carrying into effect thelate treaty between the United States and Spain. Being always desirousto communicate to Congress, or to either House, all the information inthe possession of the Executive respecting any important interest of ourUnion which may be communicated without real injury to our constituents,and which can rarely happen except in negotiations pending with foreignpowers, and deeming it more consistent with the principles of ourGovernment in cases submitted to my discretion, as in the presentinstance, to hazard error by the freedom of the communication ratherthan by withholding any portion of information belonging to the subject,I have thought proper to communicate every document comprised withinthis call.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _January 30, 1822_._To the House of Representatives of the United States_:In pursuance of a resolution of the House of Representatives of the16th instant, requesting information with regard to outrages and abusescommitted upon the persons of the officers and crews of American vesselsat The Havannah and other Spanish ports in America, and whether theSpanish authorities have taken any measures to punish, restrain, orcountenance such outrages, I herewith transmit to that House a reportfrom the Secretary of State, containing the information called for.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _January 30, 1822_._To the House of Representatives of the United States_:In pursuance of a resolution of the House of Representatives of the8th instant, I transmit to the House of Representatives a report of theSecretary of State, containing all the information procured by him inrelation to commissions of bankruptcy in certain districts of the UnitedStates under the act of 4th of April, 1800, "to establish an uniformsystem of bankruptcy in the United States."JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _February 7, 1822_._To the House of Representatives of the United States_:In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representativesrequesting the President to "cause that House to be informed whether thecommissioners appointed to lay out the continuation of the Cumberlandroad from Wheeling, in the State of Virginia, through the States ofOhio, Indiana, and Illinois to the Mississippi River, have completedthe same, and, if not completed, the reason why their duties have beensuspended," I transmit a report from the Secretary of the Treasury,which furnishes the information desired.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _February 10, 1822_._To the House of Representatives_:In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives"requesting the President of the United States to cause to be laidbefore this House any information which he may have of the conditionof the several Indian tribes within the United States and the measureshitherto devised and pursued for their civilization," I now transmita report from the Secretary of War.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _February 23, 1822_._To the House of Representatives_:In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives"requesting the President of the United States to cause to be reportedto this House whether the Indian title has been extinguished by theUnited States to any lands the right of soil in which has been or isclaimed by any particular State, and, if so, the conditions upon whichthe same has been extinguished," I herewith transmit a report from theSecretary of War, furnishing all the information in the possession ofthat Department embraced by the resolution,JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _February 23, 1822_._To the Senate of the United States_:In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 14th instant,requesting the President of the United States "to make known to theSenate the annual disposition which has been made of the sum of $15,000appropriated by an act of Congress of the year 1802 to promotecivilization among friendly Indian tribes, showing to what tribes thatevidence of the national bounty has been extended, the names of theagents who have been intrusted with the application of the money, theseveral amounts by them received, and the manner in which they haveseverally applied it to accomplish the objects of the act," I herewithtransmit a report from the Secretary of War, furnishing all theinformation upon this subject in the possession of that Department.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _February 25, 1822_._To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:Under the appropriation made by the act of Congress of the 11th ofApril, 1820, for holding treaties with the Creek and Cherokee nations ofIndians for the extinguishment of the Indian title to lands within theState of Georgia, pursuant to the fourth condition of the first articleof the articles of agreement and cession concluded between the UnitedStates and the State of Georgia on the 24th day of April, 1802, a treatywas held with the Creek Nation, the expense of which upon the settlementof the accounts of the commissioners who were appointed to conduct thenegotiation was ascertained to amount to the sum of $24,695, leaving anunexpended balance of the sum appropriated of $5,305, a sum too smallto negotiate a treaty with the Cherokees, as was contemplated by theact making the appropriation. The legislature of Georgia being stilldesirous that a treaty should be held for further extinguishment of theIndian title to lands within that State, and to obtain an indemnity tothe citizens of that State for property of considerable value, which hasbeen taken from them by the Cherokee Indians, I submit the subject tothe consideration of Congress, that a further sum, which, in additionto the balance of the former appropriation, will be adequate to theexpenses attending a treaty with them, may be appropriated shouldCongress deem it expedient.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _March 4, 1822_._To the House of Representatives of the United States_:In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the22d ultimo, requesting the President of the United States "to cause tobe laid before this House a statement showing the amount of woolenspurchased for the use of the Army during the years 1820 and 1821,comprising a description of the articles, of whom the purchases weremade, at what prices, and what proportion thereof was of Americanmanufacture," I herewith transmit a report from the Secretary of War.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _March 8, 1822_._To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:In transmitting to the House of Representatives the documents called forby the resolution of that House of the 30th January, I consider it myduty to invite the attention of Congress to a very important subject,and to communicate the sentiments of the Executive on it, that, shouldCongress entertain similar sentiments, there may be such cooperationbetween the two departments of the Government as their respective rightsand duties may require.The revolutionary movement in the Spanish Provinces in this hemisphereattracted the attention and excited the sympathy of our fellow-citizensfrom its commencement. This feeling was natural and honorable tothem, from causes which need not be communicated to you. It has beengratifying to all to see the general acquiescence which has beenmanifested in the policy which the constituted authorities have deemedit proper to pursue in regard to this contest. As soon as the movementassumed such a steady and consistent form as to make the success of theProvinces probable, the rights to which they were entitled by the lawof nations as equal parties to a civil war were extended to them. Eachparty was permitted to enter our ports with its public and privateships, and to take from them every article which was the subject ofcommerce with other nations. Our citizens, also, have carried oncommerce with both parties, and the Government has protected it witheach in articles not contraband of war. Through the whole of thiscontest the United States have remained neutral, and have fulfilled withthe utmost impartiality all the obligations incident to that character.This contest has now reached such a stage and been attended with suchdecisive success on the part of the Provinces that it merits the mostprofound consideration whether their right to the rank of independentnations, with all the advantages incident to it in their intercoursewith the United States, is not complete. Buenos Ayres assumed that rankby a formal declaration in 1816, and has enjoyed it since 1810 free frominvasion by the parent country. The Provinces composing the Republicof Colombia, after having separately declared their independence, wereunited by a fundamental law of the 17th of December, 1819. A strongSpanish force occupied at that time certain parts of the territorywithin their limits and waged a destructive war. That force has sincebeen repeatedly defeated, and the whole of it either made prisonersor destroyed or expelled from the country, with the exception of aninconsiderable portion only, which is blockaded in two fortresses.The Provinces on the Pacific have likewise been very successful. Chilideclared independence in 1818, and has since enjoyed it undisturbed; andof late, by the assistance of Chili and Buenos Ayres, the revolutionhas extended to Peru. Of the movement in Mexico our information is lessauthentic, but it is, nevertheless, distinctly understood that the newGovernment has declared its independence, and that there is now noopposition to it there nor a force to make any. For the last three yearsthe Government of Spain has not sent a single corps of troops to anypart of that country, nor is there any reason to believe it will sendany in future. Thus it is manifest that all those Provinces are not onlyin the full enjoyment of their independence, but, considering the stateof the war and other circumstances, that there is not the most remoteprospect of their being deprived of it.When the result of such a contest is manifestly settled, the newgovernments have a claim to recognition by other powers which ought notto be resisted. Civil wars too often excite feelings which the partiescan not control. The opinion entertained by other powers as to theresult may assuage those feelings and promote an accommodation betweenthem useful and honorable to both. The delay which has been observed inmaking a decision on this important subject will, it is presumed, haveafforded an unequivocal proof to Spain, as it must have done to otherpowers, of the high respect entertained by the United States for herrights and of their determination not to interfere with them. TheProvinces belonging to this hemisphere are our neighbors, and havesuccessively, as each portion of the country acquired its independence,pressed their recognition by an appeal to facts not to be contested, andwhich they thought gave them a just title to it. To motives of interestthis Government has invariably disclaimed all pretension, being resolvedto take no part in the controversy or other measure in regard to itwhich should not merit the sanction of the civilized world. To otherclaims a just sensibility has been always felt and frankly acknowledged,but they in themselves could never become an adequate cause of action.It was incumbent on this Government to look to every important fact andcircumstance on which a sound opinion could be formed, which has beendone. When we regard, then, the great length of time which this war hasbeen prosecuted, the complete success which has attended it in favorof the Provinces, the present condition of the parties, and the utterinability of Spain to produce any change in it, we are compelled toconclude that its fate is settled, and that the Provinces which havedeclared their independence and are in the enjoyment of it ought tobe recognized.Of the views of the Spanish Government on this subject no particularinformation has been recently received. It may be presumed that thesuccessful progress of the revolution through such a long series ofyears, gaining strength and extending annually in every direction, andembracing by the late important events, with little exception, all thedominions of Spain south of the United States on this continent, placingthereby the complete sovereignty over the whole in the hands of thepeople, will reconcile the parent country to an accommodation with themon the basis of their unqualified independence. Nor has any authenticinformation been recently received of the disposition of other powersrespecting it. A sincere desire has been cherished to act in concertwith them in the proposed recognition, of which several were some timepast duly apprised; but it was understood that they were not preparedfor it. The immense space between those powers, even those which borderon the Atlantic, and these Provinces makes the movement an affairof less interest and excitement to them than to us. It is probable,therefore, that they have been less attentive to its progress than wehave been. It may be presumed, however, that the late events will dispelall doubt of the result.In proposing this measure it is not contemplated to change thereby inthe slightest manner our friendly relations with either of the parties,but to observe in all respects, as heretofore, should the war becontinued, the most perfect neutrality between them. Of this friendlydisposition an assurance will be given to the Government of Spain,to whom it is presumed it will be, as it ought to be, satisfactory.The measure is proposed under a thorough conviction that it is instrict accord with the law of nations, that it is just and right asto the parties, and that the United States owe it to their stationand character in the world, as well as to their essential interests,to adopt it. Should Congress concur in the view herein presented, theywill doubtless see the propriety of making the necessary appropriationsfor carrying it into effect.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _March 9, 1822_._To the House of Representatives_:I transmit a report from the Secretary of War, together with the annualreturn of the militia of the United States, and an exhibit of the arms,accouterments, and ammunition of the several States and Territories ofthe United States, prepared in conformity with the militia laws on thatsubject.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _March 12, 1822_._To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:I lay before the Senate the copy of a supplementary report, made byWilliam Lambert, in relation to the longitude of the Capitol fromGreenwich, in pursuance of a joint resolution of the two Houses ofCongress of the 3d of March, 1821, and I subjoin an extract from theletter of Mr. Lambert submitting that report.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _March 26, 1822_._To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:Congress having suspended the appropriation, at the last session,for the fortification at Dauphine Island, in consequence of a doubtwhich was entertained of the propriety of that position, the furtherprosecution of the work was suspended, and an order given, as intimatedin the message of the 3d of December, to the Board of Engineers andNaval Commissioners to examine that part of the coast, and particularlythat position, as also the position at Mobile Point, with which it isconnected, and to report their opinion thereon, which has been done,and which report is herewith communicated.By this report it appears to be still the opinion of the Board that theconstruction of works at both these positions is of great importance tothe defense of New Orleans and of all that portion of our Union which isconnected with and dependent on the Mississippi and on the other waterswhich empty into the Gulf of Mexico between that river and Cape Florida.That the subject may be fully before Congress, I transmit also a copyof the former report of the Board, being that on which the work wasundertaken and has been in part executed. Approving as I do the opinionof the Board, I consider it my duty to state the reasons on which Iadopted the first report, especially as they were in part suggested bythe occurrences of the late war.The policy which induced Congress to decide on and provide for thedefense of the coast immediately after the war was founded on the markedevents of that interesting epoch. The vast body of men which it wasfound necessary to call into the field through the whole extent of ourmaritime frontier, and the number who perished by exposure, with theimmense expenditure of money and waste of property which followed, wereto be traced in an eminent degree to the defenseless condition of thecoast. It was to mitigate these evils in future wars, and even for thehigher purpose of preventing war itself, that the decision was formed tomake the coast, so far as it might be practicable, impregnable, and thatthe measures necessary to that great object have been pursued with somuch zeal since.It is known that no part of our Union is more exposed to invasion by thenumerous avenues leading to it, or more defenseless by the thinness ofthe neighboring population, or offers a greater temptation to invasion,either as a permanent acquisition or as a prize to the cupidity ofgrasping invaders from the immense amount of produce deposited there,than the city of New Orleans. It is known also that the seizure of nopart of our Union could affect so deeply and vitally the immediateinterests of so many States and of so many of our fellow-citizens,comprising all that extensive territory and numerous population whichare connected with and dependent on the Mississippi, as the seizure ofthat city. Strong works, well posted, were therefore deemed absolutelynecessary for its protection.It is not, however, by the Mississippi only, or the waters whichcommunicate directly with or approach nearest to New Orleans, that thetown is assailable. It will be recollected that in the late war thepublic solicitude was excited not so much by the danger which menaced itin those directions as by the apprehension that, while a feint might bemade there, the main force, landing either in the bay of Mobile or otherwaters between that bay and the Rigolets, would be thrown above the townin the rear of the army which had been collected there for its defense.Full confidence was entertained that that gallant army, led by thegallant and able chief who commanded it, would repel any attack to whichit might be exposed in front. But had such a force been thrown above thetown, and a position taken on the banks of the river, the disadvantageto which our troops would have been subjected, attacked in front andrear as they might have been, may easily be conceived. As their supplieswould have been cut off, they could not long have remained in the city,and, withdrawing from it, it must have fallen immediately into the handsof the force below. In ascending the river to attack the force above,the attack must have been made to great disadvantage, since it must havebeen on such ground and at such time as the enemy preferred. Theseconsiderations shew that defenses other than such as are immediatelyconnected with the city are of great importance to its safety.An attempt to seize New Orleans and the lower part of the Mississippiwill be made only by a great power or a combination of several powers,with a strong naval and land force, the latter of which must be broughtin transports which may sail in shallow water. If the defenses aroundNew Orleans are well posted and of sufficient strength to repel anyattack which may be made on them, the city can be assailed only by aland force, which must pass in the direction above suggested, betweenthe Rigolets and the bay of Mobile. It becomes, therefore, an object ofhigh importance to present such an obstacle to such an attempt as woulddefeat it should it be made. Fortifications are useful for the defenseof posts, to prevent the approach to cities and the passage of rivers;but as works their effect can not be felt beyond the reach of theircannon. They are formidable in other respects by the body of menwithin them, which may be removed and applied to other purposes.Between the Rigolets and the bay of Mobile there is a chain of islands,at the extremity of which is Dauphine Island, which forms, with MobilePoint, from which it is distant about 3-1/4 miles, the entrance into thebay of Mobile, which leads through that part of the State of Alabama tothe towns of Mobile and Blakeley. The distance between Dauphine Islandand the Rigolets is 90 miles. The principal islands between them areMassacre, Horn, Ship, and Cat islands, near to which there is anchoragefor large ships of war. The first object is to prevent the landing ofany force for the purposes above stated between the Rigolets and the bayof Mobile; the second, to defeat that force in case it should be landed.When the distance from one point to the other is considered, it isbelieved that it would be impossible to establish works so near to eachother as to prevent the landing of such a force. Its defeat, therefore,should be effectually provided for. If the arrangement should be such asto make that result evident, it ought to be fairly concluded that theattempt would not be made, and thus we should accomplish in the bestmode possible and with the least expense the complete security of thisimportant part of our Union, the great object of our system of defensefor the whole.There are some other views of this subject which it is thought willmerit particular attention in deciding the point in question. Not beingable to establish a chain of posts, at least for the present, along thewhole coast from the Rigolets to Dauphine Island, or on all the islandsbetween them, at which point shall we begin? Should an attack on thecity be anticipated, it can not be doubted that an adequate force wouldimmediately be ordered there for its defense. If the enemy shoulddespair of making an impression on the works near the town, it may bepresumed that they would promptly decide to make the attempt in themanner and in the line above suggested between the Rigolets and thebay of Mobile. It will be obvious that the nearer the fortification iserected to the Rigolets with a view to this object, should it be on Cator Ship Island, for example, the wider would the passage be left openbetween that work and the bay of Mobile for such an enterprise. The mainarmy, being drawn to New Orleans, would be ready to meet such an attemptnear the Rigolets or at any other point not distant from the city. Itis probable, therefore, that the enemy, profiting of a fair wind, wouldmake his attempt at the greatest distance compatible with his objectfrom that point, and at the bay of Mobile should there not be worksthere of sufficient strength to prevent it. Should, however, strongworks be erected there, such as were sufficient not only for their owndefense against any attack which might be made on them, but to hold aforce connected with that which might be drawn from the neighboringcountry, capable of cooperating with the force at the city, and whichwould doubtless be ordered to those works in the event of war, itwould be dangerous for the invading force to land anywhere between theRigolets and the bay of Mobile and to pass toward the Mississippi abovethe city, lest such a body might be thrown in its rear as to cut off itsretreat. These considerations show the great advantage of establishingat the mouth of the bay of Mobile very strong works, such as would beadequate to all the purposes suggested.If fortifications were necessary only to protect our country and citiesagainst the entry of large ships of war into our bays and rivers, theywould be of little use for the defense of New Orleans, since that citycan not be approached so near, either by the Mississippi or in any otherdirection, by such vessels for them to make an attack on it. In theGulf, within our limits west of Florida, which had been acquired sincethese works were decided on and commenced, there is no bay or river intowhich large ships of war can enter. As a defense, therefore, against anattack from such vessels extensive works would be altogether unnecessaryeither at Mobile Point or at Dauphine Island, since sloops of war onlycan navigate the deepest channel. But it is not for that purposealone that these works are intended. It is to provide also against aformidable invasion, both by land and sea, the object of which may be toshake the foundation of our system. Should such small works be erected,and such an invasion take place, they would be sure to fall at once intothe hands of the invaders and to be turned against us.Whether the acquisition of Florida may be considered as affording aninducement to make any change in the position or strength of these worksis a circumstance which also merits attention. From the view whichI have taken of the subject I am of opinion that it should not. Thedefense of New Orleans and of the river Mississippi against a powerfulinvasion being one of the great objects of such extensive works, thatobject would be essentially abandoned if they should be establishedeastward of the bay of Mobile, since the force to be collected inthem would be placed at too great a distance to allow the cooperationnecessary for those purposes between it and that at the city; inaddition to which, it may be observed that by carrying them to Pensacolaor farther to the east that bay would fall immediately, in case of suchinvasion, into the hands of the enemy, whereby such cooperation would berendered utterly impossible, and the State of Alabama would also be leftwholly unprotected.With a view to such formidable invasion, of which we should never losesight, and of the great objects to which it would be directed, I thinkthat very strong works at some point within the Gulf of Mexico willbe found indispensable. I think also that those works ought to beestablished at the bay of Mobile--one at Mobile Point and the other onDauphine Island--whereby the enemy would be excluded and the completecommand of that bay, with all the advantages attending it, be securedto ourselves. In the case of such invasion, it will, it is presumed,be deemed necessary to collect at some point other than at New Orleansa strong force, capable of moving in any direction and affording aidto any part which may be attacked; and, in my judgment, no positionpresents so many advantages as a point of rendezvous for such force asthe mouth of that bay. The fortification at the Rigolets will defend theentrance by one passage into Lake Pontchartrain, and also into PearlRiver, which empties into the Gulf at that point. Between the Rigoletsand Mobile Bay there are but two inlets which deserve the name, those ofSt. Louis and Pascagola, the entrance into which is too shallow evenfor the smallest vessels; and from the Rigolets to Mobile Bay the wholecoast is equally shallow, affording the depth of a few feet of wateronly. Cat Island, which is nearest the Rigolets, is about 7-1/2 milesdistant from the coast and 30 from the Rigolets. Ship Island is distantabout 10 miles from Cat Island and 12 from the coast. Between theseislands and the coast the water is very shallow.As to the precise depth of water in approaching those islands from theGulf, the report of the topographical engineers not having yet beenreceived, it is impossible to speak with precision; but admitting itto be such as for frigates and even ships of the line to enter, theanchorage at both is unsafe, being much exposed to northwest winds.Along the coast, therefore, there is no motive for such strong works onour part--no town to guard, no inlet into the country to defend--and ifplaced on the islands and the entrance to them is such as to admit largeships of war, distant as they are from the coast, it would be more easyfor the enemy to assail them with effect.The position, however, at Mobile Bay is essentially different. That baytakes its name from the Mobile River, which is formed by the junction ofthe Alabama and Tombigbee, which extend each about 300 miles into theinterior, approaching at their head waters near the Tennessee River.If the enemy possessed its mouth, and fortified Mobile Point andDauphine Island, being superior at sea it would be very difficult forus to dispossess him of either, even of Mobile Point; and holding thatposition, Pensacola would soon fall, as without incurring great expensein the construction of works there it would present but a feebleresistance to a strong force in its rear. If we had a work at MobilePoint only, the enemy might take Dauphine Island, which would affordhim great aid in attacking the point, and enable him, even should wesucceed in repelling the attack, to render us great mischief there andthroughout the whole Gulf. In every view which can be taken of thesubject it appears indispensable for us to command the entrance intoMobile Bay, and that decision being taken, I think the considerationswhich favor the occupation of Dauphine Island by a strong work areconclusive. It is proper to observe that after the repulse before NewOrleans in the late war the British forces took possession of DauphineIsland and held it till the peace. Under neither of the reports of theBoard of Engineers and Naval Commissioners could any but sloops of warenter the bay or the anchorage between Dauphine and Pelican islands.Both reports give to that anchorage 18 feet at low water and 20-1/2 athigh. The only difference between them consists in this, that in thefirst a bar leading to the anchorage, reducing the depth of water to12 feet at low tide, was omitted. In neither case could frigates enter,though sloops of war of larger size might. The whole scope, however, ofthis reasoning turns on a different principle--on the works necessary todefend that bay and, by means thereof, New Orleans, the Mississippi, andall the surrounding country against a powerful invasion both by land andsea, and not on the precise depth of water in any of the approaches tothe bay or to the island.The reasoning which is applicable to the works near New Orleans and atthe bay of Mobile is equally so in certain respects to those which areto be erected for the defense of all the bays and rivers along the otherparts of the coast. All those works are also erected on a greater scalethan would be necessary for the sole purpose of preventing the passageof our inlets by large ships of war. They are in most instances formedfor defense against a more powerful invasion, both by land and sea.There are, however, some differences between the works which are deemednecessary in the Gulf and those in other parts of our Union, founded onthe peculiar situation of that part of the coast. The vast extent ofthe Mississippi, the great outlet and channel of commerce for so manyStates, all of which may be affected by the seizure of that city, orof any part of the river to a great extent above it, is one of thosestriking peculiarities which require particular provision. The thinnessof the population near the city, making it necessary that the forcerequisite for its defense should be called from distant parts andStates, is another. The danger which the army assembled at New Orleanswould be exposed to of being cut off in case the enemy should throw aforce on the river above it, from the difficulty of ascending the riverto attack it and of making a retreat in any other direction, is a third.For an attack on the city of New Orleans, Mobile Bay, or any part of theintermediate coast ships of war would be necessary only as a convoy toprotect the transports against a naval force on their passage, and ontheir approach to the shore for the landing of the men, and on theirreturn home in case they should be repulsed.On the important subject of our defenses generally I think proper toobserve that the system was adopted immediately after the late war byCongress, on great consideration and a thorough knowledge of the effectsof that war--by the enormous expense attending it, by the waste of life,of property, and by the general distress of the country. The amount ofdebt incurred in that war and due at its conclusion, without taking intothe estimate other losses, having been heretofore communicated, neednot now be repeated. The interest of the debt thus incurred is fourtimes more than the sum necessary, by annual appropriations, for thecompletion of our whole system of defense, land and naval, to the extentprovided for and within the time specified. When that system shall becompleted the expense of construction will cease, and our expendituresbe proportionally diminished. Should another war occur before it iscompleted, the experience of the last marks in characters too strongto be mistaken its inevitable consequences; and should such war occurand find us unprepared for it, what will be our justification to theenlightened body whom we represent for not having completed thesedefenses? That this system should not have been adopted before the latewar can not be a cause of surprise to anyone, because all might wishto avoid every expense the necessity of which might be in any degreedoubtful. But with the experience of that war before us it is thoughtthere is no cause for hesitation. Will the completion of these works andthe augmentation of our Navy to the point contemplated by law requirethe imposition of onerous burthens on our fellow-citizens such as theycan not or will not bear? Have such, or any, burthens been imposed toadvance the system to its present state? It is known that no burthenswhatever have been imposed; on the contrary, that all the direct orinternal taxes have been long repealed, and none paid but those whichare indirect and voluntary, such as are imposed on articles importedfrom foreign countries, most of which are luxuries, and on the vesselsemployed in the transportation--taxes which some of our most enlightenedcitizens think ought to be imposed on many of the articles for theencouragement of our manufactures, even if the revenue derived from themcould be dispensed with. It is known also that in all other respectsour condition as a nation is in the highest degree prosperous andflourishing, nearly half the debt incurred in the late war havingalready been discharged, and considerable progress having also been madein the completion of this system of defense and in the construction ofother works of great extent and utility, by the revenue derived fromthese sources and from the sale of the public lands. I may add alsothat a very generous provision has been made from the same sources forthe surviving officers and soldiers of our Revolutionary army. Theseimportant facts show that this system has been so far executed, and maybe completed without any real inconvenience to the public. Were it,however, otherwise, I have full confidence that any burthens whichmight be found necessary for the completion of this system in bothits branches within the term contemplated, or much sooner should anyemergency require it, would be called for rather than complained ofby our fellow-citizens.From these views, applicable to the very important subject of ourdefenses generally as well as to the work at Dauphine Island, I thinkit my duty to recommend to Congress an appropriation for the latter.I considered the withholding it at the last session as the expressiononly of a doubt by Congress of the propriety of the position, and notas a definitive opinion. Supposing that that question would be decidedat the present session, I caused the position and such parts of thecoast as are particularly connected with it to be reexamined, that allthe light on which the decision as to the appropriation could dependmight be fully before you. In the first survey, the report of whichwas that on which the works intended for the defense of New Orleans,the Mississippi, the bay of Mobile, and all the country dependent onthose waters were sanctioned by the Executive, the commissioners wereindustriously engaged about six months. I should have communicated thatvery able and interesting document then but from a doubt how far theinterest of our country would justify its publication, a circumstancewhich I now mention that the attention of Congress may be drawn to it.JAMES MONROE.MARCH 26, 1822._To the Senate of the United States_:Having executed the act entitled "An act to reduce and fix the militarypeace establishment of the United States" on great consideration andaccording to my best judgment, and inferring from the rejection ofthe nomination of Colonel Towson and Colonel Gadsden, officers of verydistinguished merit, that the view which I took of that law has not beenwell understood, I hereby withdraw all the nominations on which theSenate has not decided until I can make a more full communication andexplanation of that view and of the principles on which I have actedin the discharge of that very delicate and important duty.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _March 27, 1822_._To the House of Representatives_:In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the1st instant, requesting "the President to communicate such informationas he may possess relative to any private claim against the piece ofland in the Delaware River known by the name of the Peapatch, and tostate if any, and what, process has been instituted in behalf of suchclaim," I herewith transmit a report from the Secretary of War,furnishing the information required.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _March 28, 1822_._To the House of Representatives_:I transmit the original reports on the subject of the fortifications onDauphin Island and Mobile Point, being those on which the works wereundertaken and have been in part executed. The doubt expressed as to thepropriety of publication is applicable to this document, which wouldhave accompanied the message of the 26th had it been prepared in time.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _March 29, 1822_._To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:I transmit to Congress the translation of two letters from the ministerof France to the Secretary of State, relating to the claim of the heirsof Caron de Beaumarchais upon this Government, with the documentstherewith inclosed, recommending them to the favorable considerationof Congress.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _April 5, 1822_._To the House of Representatives of the United States_:I communicate herewith to the House a report from the Secretary of War,containing the information requested by their resolution of the 5thultimo.It may be proper further to add that the secretaries of both theTerritories have occasionally required and received the aid of themilitary force of the United States stationed within them, respectively,to carry into effect the acts of their authority.The government of East and West Florida was under the Spanish dominionalmost exclusively military. The governors of both were militaryofficers and united in their persons the chief authority, both civiland military.The principle upon which the act of Congress of the last sessionproviding for the temporary government of the newly ceded Provinces wascarried into execution has been communicated to Congress in my messageat the opening of the session. It was to leave the authorities of thecountry as they were found existing at the time of the cession, to beexercised until the meeting of Congress, when it was known that theintroduction of a system more congenial to our own institutions would beone of the earliest and most important subjects of their deliberations.From this, among other obvious considerations, military officers wereappointed to take possession of both Provinces. But as the militarycommand of General Jackson was to cease on the 1st of June, GeneralGaines, the officer next in command, then here, who was first designatedto take possession of East Florida, received from me a verbal directionto give such effect to any requisition from the governor for militaryaid to enforce his authority as the circumstances might require. It wasnot foreseen that the command in both the Provinces would before furtherlegislation by Congress on that subject devolve upon the secretaries ofthe Territories, but had it been foreseen the same direction would havebeen given as applicable to them.No authority has been given to either of the secretaries to issuecommands to that portion of the Army which is in Florida, and wheneverthe aid of _the military_ has been required by them it has been bywritten requisitions to the officers commanding the troops, who haveyielded compliance thereto doubtless under the directions receivedfrom General Gaines as understood by him to be authorized.Shortly before the meeting of Congress a letter was received at the WarDepartment from Colonel Brooke, the officer commanding at Pensacola,requesting instructions how far he was to consider these requisitionsas authoritative, but the assurance that a new organization of thegovernment was immediately to be authorized by Congress was a motivefor superseding any specific decision upon the inquiry.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _April 6, 1822_._To the House of Representatives of the United States_:In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representativesrequesting the President of the United States to cause to be furnishedto that House certain information relating to the amount of the publicmoney paid to the Attorney-General over and above his salary fixed bylaw since the 1st of January, 1817, specifying the time when paid andthe fund out of which such payments have been made, I transmit a paper,marked A, containing the information desired. I transmit also a paper,marked B, containing a statement of sums paid to Attorney General of theUnited States prior to the 1st of January, 1817, and in the paper markedC a like statement of sums advanced to district attorneys for servicesnot required of them by law. These latter documents being necessary toa full view of the subject, it is thought proper to comprise them inthis communication.By the act of 24th September, 1789, instituting the office of AttorneyGeneral, it was made his duty to prosecute and conduct all suits in theSupreme Court in which the United States should be concerned, and togive his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by thePresident of the United States, or when requested by the head of anyof the Departments, touching any matters that might concern theirDepartments. It will be seen, therefore, by the statement communicatedthat no money whatever has been paid to the Attorney General for hisservices in that character, nor for any duty belonging to his office,beyond his salary as fixed by law.It will also be shewn by the documents communicated that theconstruction given of the laws imposing duties on the Attorney Generaland district attorneys have been invariably the same since theinstitution of the Government. On the same authority it was thoughtthat the compensation allowed to the present Attorney General forcertain services, considering their importance and the time employedin rendering them, did not exceed, regarding precedents, what mightfairly be claimed.JAMES MONROE.APRIL, 13, 1822._To the Senate of the United States_:Having cause to infer that the reasons which led to the constructionwhich I gave to the act of the last session entitled "An act to reduceand fix the peace establishment of the United States" have not been wellunderstood, I consider it my duty to explain more fully the view whichI took of that act and of the principles on which I executed the verydifficult and important duty enjoined on me by it.To do justice to the subject it is thought proper to show the actualstate of the Army before the passage of the late act, the force inservice, the several corps of which it was composed, and the gradesand number of officers commanding it. By seeing distinctly the bodyin all its parts on which the law operated, viewing also with a justdiscrimination the spirit, policy, and positive injunctions of that lawwith reference to precedents established in a former analogous case,we shall be enabled to ascertain with great precision whether theseinjunctions have or have not been strictly complied with.By the act of the 3d of March, 1815, entitled "An act fixing themilitary peace establishment of the United States," the whole forcein service was reduced to 10,000 men--infantry, artillery, andriflemen--exclusive of the Corps of Engineers, which was retained in itsthen state. The regiment of light artillery was retained as it had beenorganized by the act of 3d March, 1814. The infantry was formed into9 regiments, 1 of which consisted of riflemen. The regiments of lightartillery, infantry, riflemen, and Corps of Engineers were commandedeach by a colonel, lieutenant-colonel, and the usual battalion andcompany officers; and the battalions of the corps of artillery, of whichthere were 8--4 for the Northern and 4 for the Southern division--werecommanded by lieutenant-colonels or majors, there being 4 of each grade.There were, therefore, in the Army at the time the late law was passed12 colonels belonging to those branches of the military establishment.Two major-generals and 4 brigadiers were likewise retained in service bythis act; but the staff in several of its branches not being providedfor, and being indispensable and the omission inadvertent, proceedingfrom the circumstances under which the act was passed, being at theclose of the session, at which time intelligence of the peace wasreceived, it was provisionally retained by the President, and providedfor afterwards by the act of the 24th April, 1816. By this act theOrdnance Department was preserved as it had been organized by the actof February 8, 1815, with 1 colonel, 1 lieutenant-colonel, 2 majors,10 captains, and 10 first, second, and third lieutenants. One Adjutantand Inspector General of the Army and 2 adjutants-general--1 for theNorthern and 1 for the Southern division--were retained. This actprovides also for a Paymaster-General, with a suitable number ofregimental and battalion paymasters, as a part of the general staff,constituting the military peace establishment; and the Pay Departmentand every other branch of the staff were subjected to the Rules andArticles of War.By the act of March 2, 1821, it was ordained that the military peaceestablishment should consist of 4 regiments of artillery and 7 ofinfantry, with such officers of engineers, ordnance, and staff as weretherein specified. It is provided that each regiment of artillery shouldconsist of 1 colonel, 1 lieutenant-colonel, 1 major, and 9 companies,with the usual company officers, 1 of which to be equipped as lightartillery, and that there should be attached to each regiment ofartillery 1 supernumerary captain to perform ordnance duty, therebymerging the regiment of artillery and Ordnance Department into these4 regiments. It was provided also that each regiment of infantry shouldconsist of 1 colonel, 1 lieutenant colonel, 1 major, and 10 companies,with the usual company officers. The Corps of Engineers, bombardiersexcepted, with the topographical engineers and their assistants, wereto be retained under the existing organization. The former establishmentas to the number of major generals and brigadiers was curtailed one-half,and the office of Inspector and Adjutant General to the Army and ofadjutant-general to each division annulled, and that of Adjutant Generalto the Army instituted. The Quartermaster, Paymaster, and CommissaryDepartments were also specially provided for, as was every other branchof the staff, all of which received a new modification, and weresubjected to the Rules and Articles of War.The immediate and direct operation of this act on the military peaceestablishment of 1815 was that of reduction, from which no officerbelonging to it was exempt, unless it might be the topographicalengineers; for in retaining the Corps of Engineers, as was manifestas well by the clear import of the section relating to it as by theprovisions of every other clause of the act, reference was had to theorganization, and not to the officers of the Corps. The establishmentof 1815 was reduced from 10,000 to about 6,000 men. The 8 battalions ofartillery, constituting what was called the corps of artillery, and theregiment of light artillery as established by the act of 1815, were tobe incorporated together and formed into 4 new regiments. The regimentsof infantry were to be reduced from 9 to 7, the rifle regiment beingbroken. Three of the general officers were to be reduced, with verymany of the officers belonging to the several corps of the Army, andparticularly of the infantry. All the provisions of the act declare ofwhat number of officers and men the several corps provided for by itshould thenceforward consist, and not that any corps as then existingor any officer of any corps, unless the topographical engineers wereexcepted, should be retained. Had it been intended to reduce theofficers by corps, or to exempt the officers of any corps from theoperation of the law, or in the organization of the several new corpsto confine the selection of the officers to be placed in them to theseveral corps of the like kind then existing, and not extend it to thewhole military establishment, including the staff, or to confine thereduction to a proportional number of each corps and of each gradein each corps, the object in either instance might have been easilyaccomplished by a declaration to that effect. No such declaration wasmade, nor can such intention be inferred. We see, on the contrary, thatevery corps of the Army and staff was to be reorganized, and most ofthem reduced in officers and men, and that in arranging the officersfrom the old to the new corps full power was granted to the Presidentto take them from any and every corps of the former establishment andplace them in the latter. In this latter grant of power it is properto observe that the most comprehensive terms that could be adopted wereused, the authority being to cause the arrangement to be made from theofficers of the several _corps_ then in the service of the UnitedStates, comprising, of course, every corps of the staff, as well as ofartillery and infantry, and not from the _corps of troops_, as in theformer act, and without any limitation as to grades.It merits particular attention that although the object of thislatter act was reduction and such its effect on an extensive scale,5 new offices were created by it--4 of the grade of colonel for the4 regiments of artillery and that of Adjutant-General for the Army. Threeof the first mentioned were altogether new, the corps having been newlycreated, and although 1 officer of that grade as applicable to the corpsof light artillery had existed, yet as that regiment was reduced andall its parts reorganized in another form and with other duties, beingincorporated into the 4 new regiments, the commander was manifestlydisplaced and incapable of taking the command of either of the newregiments or any station in them until he should be authorized to do soby a new appointment. The same remarks are applicable to the office ofAdjutant-General to the Army. It is an office of new creation, differingfrom that of Adjutant and Inspector General, and likewise from thatof adjutant-general to a division, which were severally annulled. Itdiffers from the first in title, rank, and pay, and from the two latterbecause they had been created by law each for a division, whereas thenew office, being instituted without such special designation, couldhave relation only to the whole Army. It was manifest, therefore, thatneither of those officers had any right to this new station nor toany other station unless he should be specially appointed to it, theprinciple of reduction being applicable to every officer in every corps.It is proper also to observe that the duties of Adjutant-General underthe existing arrangement correspond in almost every circumstance withthose of the late Adjutant and Inspector General, and not with thoseof an adjutant-general of a division.To give effect to this law the President was authorized by the twelfthsection to cause the officers, noncommissioned officers, artificers,musicians, and privates of the several corps then in the service of theUnited States to be arranged in such manner as to form and completeout of the same the force thereby provided for, and to cause thesupernumerary officers, noncommissioned officers, artificers, musicians,and privates to be discharged from the service.In executing this very delicate and important trust I acted with theutmost precaution. Sensible of what I owed to my country, I feltstrongly the obligation of observing the utmost impartiality inselecting those officers who were to be retained. In executing this lawI had no personal object to accomplish or feeling to gratify--no oneto retain, no one to remove. Having on great consideration fixed theprinciples on which the reduction should be made, I availed myselfof the example of my predecessor by appointing through the properdepartment a board of general officers to make the selection, andwhose report I adopted.In transferring the officers from the old to the new corps the utmostcare was taken to place them in the latter in the grades and corps towhich they had respectively belonged in the former, so far as it mightbe practicable. This, though not enjoined by the law, appearing to bejust and proper, was never departed from except in peculiar cases andunder imperious circumstances.In filling the original vacancies in the artillery and in the newlycreated office of Adjutant-General I considered myself at liberty toplace in them any officer belonging to any part of the whole militaryestablishment, whether of the staff or line. In filling originalvacancies--that is, offices newly created--it is my opinion, as ageneral principle, that Congress have no right under the Constitutionto impose any restraint by law on the power granted to the Presidentso as to prevent his making a free selection of proper persons for theseoffices from the whole body of his fellow-citizens. Without, however,entering here into that question, I have no hesitation in declaring itas my opinion that the law fully authorized a selection from any branchof the whole military establishment of 1815. Justified, therefore, asI thought myself in taking that range by the very highest sanction, thesole object to which I had to direct my attention was the merit of theofficers to be selected for these stations. Three generals of greatmerit were either to be dismissed or otherwise provided for. Thevery gallant and patriotic defender of New Orleans had intimated hisintention to retire, but at my suggestion expressed his willingnessto accept the office of commissioner to receive the cession of theFloridas and of governor for a short time of that Territory. As to one,therefore, there was no difficulty. For the other two provision couldonly be made in the mode which was adopted. General Macomb, who hadsignalized himself in the defense of Plattsburg, was placed at the headof the Corps of Engineers, to which he had originally belonged, and inwhich he had acquired great experience, Colonel Armistead, then at thehead of that corps, having voluntarily accepted one of the new regimentsof artillery, for which he possessed very suitable qualifications.General Atkinson, likewise an officer of great merit, was appointed tothe newly created office of Adjutant-General. Brevet General Porter, anofficer of great experience in the artillery, and merit, was appointedto the command of another of those regiments. Colonel Fenwick, then theoldest lieutenant-colonel of artillery, and who had suffered much in thelate war by severe wounds, was appointed to a third, and Colonel Towson,who had served with great distinction in the same corps and been twicebrevetted for his gallantry in the late war, was appointed to the lastremaining one. General Atkinson having declined the office of AdjutantGeneral, Colonel Gadsden, an officer of distinguished merit and believedto possess qualifications suitably adapted to it, was appointed inhis stead. In making the arrangement the merits of Colonel Butler andColonel Jones were not overlooked. The former was assigned to the placewhich he would have held in the line if he had retained his originallineal commission, and the latter to his commission in the line, whichhe had continued to hold with his staff appointment.That the reduction of the Army and the arrangement of the officersfrom the old to the new establishment and the appointments referred towere in every instance strictly conformable to law will, I think, beapparent. To the arrangement generally no objection has been heard; ithas been made, however, to the appointments to the original vacancies,and particularly to those of Colonel Towson and Colonel Gadsden. Tothose appointments, therefore, further attention is due. If they wereimproper it must be either that they were illegal or that the officersdid not merit the offices conferred on them. The acknowledged merit ofthe officers and the peculiar fitness for the offices to which they wererespectively appointed must preclude all objection on that head. Havingalready suggested my impression that in filling offices newly created,to which on no principle whatever anyone could have a claim of right,Congress could not under the Constitution restrain the free selection ofthe President from the whole body of his fellow-citizens, I shall onlyfurther remark that if that impression is well founded all objectionto these appointments must cease. If the law imposed such restraint,it would in that case be void. But, according to my judgment, the lawimposed none. An objection to the legality of those appointments must befounded either on the principle that those officers were not comprisedwithin the corps then in the service of the United States--that is, didnot belong to the peace establishment--or that the power granted bythe word "arrange" imposed on the President the necessity of placingin these new offices persons of the same grade only from the old. It isbelieved that neither objection is well founded. Colonel Towson belongedto one of the corps then in the service of the United States, or, inother words, of the military peace establishment. By the act of 1815-16the Pay Department, of which the Paymaster General was the chief, wasmade one of the branches of the staff, and he and all those under himwere subjected to the Rules and Articles of War. The appointment,therefore, of him, and especially to a new office, was strictlyconformable to law.The only difference between the fifth section of the act of 1815 forreducing the Army and the twelfth section of the act of 1821 for stillfurther reducing it, by which the power to carry those laws into effectwas granted to the President in each instance, consists in this, that bythe former he was to cause the arrangement to be made of the officers,noncommissioned officers, musicians, and privates of the several _corpsof troops_ then in the service of the United States, whereas in thelatter the term _troops_ was omitted. It can not be doubted that thatomission had an object, and that it was thereby intended to guardagainst misconstruction in so very material and important a circumstanceby authorizing the application of the act unequivocally to every corpsof the staff as well as of the line. With that word a much wider rangewas given to the act of 1815 on the reduction which then took place thanunder the last act. The omission of it from the last act, together withall the sanctions which were given by Congress to the construction ofthe law in the reduction made under the former, could not fail to dispelall doubt as to the extent of the power granted by the last law and ofthe principles which ought to guide, and on which it was thereby madethe duty of the President to execute it. With respect to the otherobjection--that is, that officers of the same grade only ought to havebeen transferred to these new offices--it is equally unfounded. It isadmitted that officers may be taken from the old corps and reduced andarranged in the new in inferior grades, as was done under the formerreduction. This admission puts an end to the objection in this case;for if an officer may be reduced and arranged from one corps to anotherby an entire change of grade, requiring a new commission and a newnomination to the Senate, I see no reason why an officer may not beadvanced in like manner. In both instances the grade in the old corpsis alike disregarded. The transfer from it to the new turns on the meritof the party, and it is believed that the claim in this instance is feltby all with peculiar sensibility. The claim of Colonel Towson is thestronger because the arrangement of him to the office to which he is nownominated is not to one from which any officer has been removed, and towhich any other officer may in any view of the case be supposed to havehad a claim. As Colonel Gadsden held the office of Inspector-General,and as such was acknowledged by all to belong to the staff of the Army,it is not perceived on what ground his appointment can be objected to.If such a construction is to be given to the act of 1821 as to confinethe transfer of officers from the old to the new establishment to the_corps of troops_--that is, to the line of the Army--the whole staff ofthe Army in every branch would not only be excluded from any appointmentin the new establishment, but altogether disbanded from the service.It would follow also that all the offices of the staff under thenew arrangement must be filled by officers belonging to the newestablishment after its organization and their arrangement in it.Other consequences not less serious would follow. If the right of thePresident to fill these original vacancies by the selection of officersfrom any branch of the whole military establishment was denied, he wouldbe compelled to place in them officers of the same grade whose corps hadbeen reduced, and they with them. The effect, therefore, of the law asto those appointments would be to legislate into office men who had beenalready legislated out of office, taking from the President all agencyin their appointment. Such a construction would not only be subversiveof the obvious principles of the Constitution, but utterly inconsistentwith the spirit of the law itself, since it would provide offices fora particular grade, and fix every member of that grade in those offices,at a time when every other grade was reduced, and among them generalsand other officers of the highest merit. It would also defeat everyobject of selection, since colonels of infantry would be placed at thehead of regiments of artillery, a service in which they might have hadno experience, and for which they might in consequence be unqualified.Having omitted in the message to Congress at the commencement of thesession to state the principles on which this law had been executed, andhaving imperfectly explained them in the message to the Senate of the17th of January last, I deem it particularly incumbent on me, as wellfrom a motive of respect to the Senate as to place my conduct in theduty imposed on me by that act in a clear point of view, to make thiscommunication at this time. The examples under the law of 1815, wherebyofficers were reduced and arranged from the old corps to the new ininferior grades, fully justify all that has been done under the lawof 1821. If the power to arrange under the former law authorized theremoval of one officer from a particular station and the location ofanother in it, reducing the latter from a higher to an inferior grade,with the advice and consent of the Senate, it surely justifies underthe latter law the arrangement of these officers, with a like sanction,to offices of new creation, from which no one had been removed and towhich no one had a just claim. It is on the authority of these examples,supported by the construction which I gave to the law, that I have actedin the discharge of this high trust. I am aware that many officers ofgreat merit, having the strongest claims on their country, have beenreduced and others dismissed, but under the law that result wasinevitable. It is believed that none have been retained who had not,likewise, the strongest claims to the appointments which have beenconferred on them. To discriminate between men of acknowledged merit,especially in a way to affect so sensibly and materially their feelingsand interests, for many of whom I have personal consideration andregard, has been a most painful duty; yet I am conscious that I havedischarged it with the utmost impartiality. Had I opened the door tochange in any case, even where error might have been committed, againstwhom could I afterwards have closed it, and into what consequences mightnot such a proceeding have led? The same remarks are applicable to thesubject in its relation to the Senate, to whose calm and enlightenedjudgment, with these explanations, I again submit the nominations whichhave been rejected.JAMES MONROE.APRIL 15, 1822._To the Senate of the United States_:In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 12th instant,requesting the President of the United States "to cause to be laidbefore the Senate the original proceedings of the board of generalofficers charged with the reduction of the Army under the act of the 2dof March, 1821, together with all communications to and from said boardon the subject of reducing the Army, including the case submitted to theAttorney-General, and his opinion thereon," I now transmit a report fromthe Secretary of War, furnishing the information requested.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _April 15, 1822_._To the Senate of the United States_:In compliance with a resolution of the Senate requesting the Presidentof the United States to lay before that House any report or informationwhich may be in his possession as to the most eligible situation onthe Western waters for the erection of a national arsenal, I herewithtransmit a report from the Secretary of War, containing all theinformation on that subject in the possession of the Executive.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _April 15, 1822_._To the House of Representatives of the United States_:In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the16th of February last, requesting the President of the United States"to communicate to that House whether any foreign government has madeany claim to any part of the territory of the United States upon thecoast of the Pacific Ocean north of the forty-second degree of latitude,and to what extent; whether any regulations have been made by foreignpowers affecting the trade on that coast, and how it affects the interestof this Republic, and whether any communications have been made to thisGovernment by foreign powers touching the contemplated occupation ofColumbia River," I now transmit a report from the Secretary of State,containing the information embraced by that resolution.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _April 18, 1822_._To the House of Representatives_:I communicate to the House of Representatives copies of sundry papershaving relation to the transactions in East and West Florida, which havebeen received at the Department of State since my message to the twoHouses of Congress of the 28th of January last, together with copiesof two letters from the Secretary of State upon the same subject.JAMES MONROE.[The same message was sent to the Senate.]WASHINGTON, _April 23, 1822_._To the House of Representatives_:In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the29th January last, requesting the President of the United States tocause to be communicated to that House certain information relative tothe claim made by Jonathan Carver to certain lands within the UnitedStates near the Falls of St. Anthony. I now transmit a report of theSecretary of the Treasury, which, with the accompanying documents,contains all the information on this subject in the possession ofthe Executive.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _April 26, 1822_._To the Senate of the United States_:I transmit to the Senate, agreeably to their resolution of yesterday, areport from the Secretary of State, with copies of the papers requestedby that resolution, in relation to the recognition of the South AmericanProvinces.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _April 29, 1822_._To the House of Representatives_:I transmit to the House of Representatives a report from the Secretaryof State, in pursuance of their resolution of the 20th instant,[A]"requesting to be furnished with a copy of the judicial proceedingsin the United States court for the district of Louisiana in the caseof the French slave ship _La Pensee_."JAMES MONROE.[Footnote: A: An error; so in the original message. The date of theresolution is the 18th of April.]WASHINGTON, _April 30, 1822_._To the Senate of the United States_:In compliance with a resolution of the Senate, requesting the Presidentof the United States to cause to be laid before the Senate certaininformation respecting the practical operation of the system ofsubsisting the Army under the provisions of the act passed the 14thof April, 1818, etc., I herewith transmit a report from the Secretaryof War, furnishing the information required.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _May 1, 1822_._To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:In the message to both Houses of Congress at the commencement of theirpresent session it was mentioned that the Government of Norway hadissued an ordinance for admitting the vessels of the United States andtheir cargoes into the ports of that Kingdom upon the payment of noother or higher duties than are paid by Norwegian vessels, of whateverarticles the said cargoes may consist and from whatever ports thevessels laden with them may come.In communicating this ordinance to the Government of the United Statesthat of Norway has requested the benefit of a similar and reciprocalprovision for the vessels of Norway and their cargoes which may enterthe ports of the United States.This provision being within the competency only of the legislativeauthority of Congress, I communicate to them herewith copies of thecommunications received from the Norwegian Government in relation tothe subject, and recommend the same to their consideration.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _May 1, 1822_._To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:I transmit herewith to Congress copies of letters received at theDepartment of State from the minister of Great Britain on the subjectof the duties discriminating between imported rolled and hammered iron.I recommend them particularly to the consideration of Congress, believingthat although there may be ground for controversy with regard to theapplication of the engagements of the treaty to the case, yet a liberalconstruction of those engagements would be compatible at once with aconciliatory and a judicious policy.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _May 4, 1822_._To the House of Representatives of the United States_:In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the19th of April, requesting the President "to cause to be communicated tothe House, if not injurious to the public interest, any letter whichmay have been received from Jonathan Russell, one of the ministerswho concluded the treaty of Ghent, in conformity with the indicationscontained in his letter of the 25th of December, 1814," I have to statethat having referred the resolution to the Secretary of State, andit appearing, by a report from him, that no such document had beendeposited among the archives of the Department, I examined and foundamong my private papers a letter of that description marked "private"by himself. I transmit a copy of the report of the Secretary of State,by which it appears that Mr. Russell, on being apprised that the documentreferred to by the resolution had not been deposited in the Departmentof State, delivered there "a paper purporting to be the duplicate of aletter written by him from Paris on the 11th of February, 1815, to thethen Secretary of State, to be communicated to the House as the lettercalled for by the resolution."On the perusal of the document called for I find that it communicatesa difference of opinion between Mr. Russell and a majority of hiscolleagues in certain transactions which occurred in the negotiations atGhent, touching interests which have been since satisfactorily adjustedby treaty between the United States and Great Britain. The view whichMr. Russell presents of his own conduct and that of his colleagues inthose transactions will, it is presumed, call from the two survivingmembers of that mission who differed from him a reply containingtheir view of those transactions and of the conduct of the partiesin them, and who, should his letter be communicated to the House ofRepresentatives, will also claim that their reply should be communicatedin like manner by the Executive--a claim which, on the principle ofequal justice, could not be resisted. The Secretary of State, one of theministers referred to, has already expressed a desire that Mr. Russell'sletter should be communicated, and that I would transmit at the sametime a communication from him respecting it.On full consideration of the subject I have thought it would be improperfor the Executive to communicate the letter called for unless the House,on a knowledge of these circumstances, should desire it, in which casethe document called for shall be communicated, accompanied by a reportfrom the Secretary of State, as above suggested. I have directed a copyto be delivered to Mr. Russell, to be disposed of as he may thinkproper, and have caused the original to be deposited in the Departmentof State, with instruction to deliver a copy to any person who may beinterested.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _May 6, 1822_._To the Senate and House of Representatives_:I transmit to Congress translations of two letters from Don Joaquind'Anduaga to the Secretary of State, which have been received at theDepartment of State since my last message communicating copies of bigcorrespondence with this Government.JAMES MONROE._Don Joaquin de Anduaga to the Secretary of State_.[Translation.]PHILADELPHIA, _April 24, 1822_.SIR: As soon as the news was received in Madrid of the recentoccurrences in New Spain after the arrival at Vera Cruz of theCaptain-General and supreme political chief appointed for thoseProvinces, Don Juan O. Donoju, and some papers were seen relative tothose same transactions, it was feared that for forming the treatyconcluded in Cordova on the 24th of August last between the said Generaland the traitor, Colonel Dr. Augustine Iturbide, it had been falselysupposed that the former had power from His Catholic Majesty for thatact, and in a little time the correctness of those suspicions was found,as, among other things, the said O. Donoju, when on the 26th of the sameAugust he sent this treaty to the governor of Vera Cruz, notifyinghim of its prompt and punctual observance, he told him that at hissailing from the Peninsula preparation for the independence of Mexicowas already thought of, and that its bases were approved of by theGovernment and by a commission of the Cortes. His Majesty, on sightof this and of the fatal impression which so great an imposture hadproduced in some ultramarine Provinces, and what must without difficultybe the consequence among the rest, thought proper to order that, bymeans of a circular to all the chiefs and corporations beyond seas,this atrocious falsehood should be disbelieved; and now he has deignedto command me to make it known to the Government of the United Statesthat it is false as far as General O. Donoju published beyond hisinstructions, by pointing out to it that he never could have beenfurnished with other instructions than those conformable toconstitutional principles.In compliance with this order of His Majesty, I can do no less thanobserve to you, sir, how unfounded one of the reasons is in your noteof the 6th instant for the recognition by this Government of those ofthe insurgent Provinces of Spanish-America--that it was founded on thetreaty made by O. Donoju with Iturbide--since not having had that powernor instruction to conclude it it is clearly null and of no value.I repeat to you, sir, the sentiments of my distinguished consideration,and pray God that you live many years.JOAQUIN DE ANDUAGA._Don Joaquin de Anduaga to the Secretary of State_.[Translation.]PHILADELPHIA, _April 26, 1822_.JOHN QUINCY ADAMS,_Secretary of State_.SIR: I have received your note of the 15th instant, in which you arepleased to communicate to me the reasons which induce the Presidentnot only to refuse to His Catholic Majesty the satisfaction which hedemanded in his royal name for the insults offered by General Jacksonto the Spanish commissaries and officers, but to approve fully of thesaid chief's conduct.Before answering the contents of the said note I thought it my duty torequest instructions from my Government, and therefore without delay Ihave laid it before them. Until they arrive, therefore, I have confinedmyself to two observations:First. If in my note of the 18th of November last I said that as GeneralJackson had not specified the actions which had induced him to declarethe Spanish officers expelled from the Floridas criminal, nor givenproof of them, I thought myself authorized to declare the accusationfalse, I did not this through inadvertency, but upon the evidentprinciple that every person accused has a right to declare an accusationdestitute of proof false, and, much more, an accusation not pretendedto be proved. This assertion of mine does not presume that I am notpersuaded of the merit of the said General and of the claim which he hasupon the gratitude of his country; but although it is believed the dutyof his country to eulogize and reward his eminent services, yet it willbe lawful for the representative of a power outraged by him to complainof his conduct. I can not persuade myself that to aggravate my saidexpression you could have thought that I had been wanting in duerespect, it not being possible for that opinion to have entered yourmind, when by his orders Mr. Forsyth had sent to the Spanish ministeron the 1st of September last a note, in which, complaining of theCaptain-General of the island of Cuba, he accuses him of dishonorablepecuniary motives in not having delivered the archives, without givingany proof of so injurious an assertion; and I must remark that the rankof General Mabry in Spain is at least as elevated as that of GeneralJackson in the United States, and that the services performed by him tohis country have rendered him as worthy as he of its consideration andrespect.Second. Although you are pleased to tell me that part of the paperstaken from Colonel Coppinger are ready to be delivered, which theAmerican commissioners, _after having examined them_, have adjudged tobe returned to Spain, I do not think myself authorized to admit theirreturn in this manner, but in the mode which I demanded in my note ofthe 22d of November last.As I have seen by the public papers that the President has communicatedto Congress the note which you were pleased to address to me, datedthe 15th instant, and that it has been ordered to be printed, I takethe liberty of requesting that you will have the goodness to use yourinfluence that this my answer may be treated in the same manner, thatCongress and the public may be informed that if I have not answered thefirst part of it as respects the general business, it is only to waitfor the instructions of my Government, but that I have answered whatwas personal.I renew to you, sir, the sentiments of my distinguished consideration.JOAQUIN DE ANDUAGA.WASHINGTON, _May 6, 1822_._To the Senate of the United States_:In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 26th of April,requesting the President of the United States "to communicate to theSenate the report of the Attorney-General relative to any persons(citizens of the United States) who have been charged with or suspectedof introducing any slaves into the United States contrary to existinglaws," I transmit herewith two reports from the Attorney-General.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _May 7, 1822_._To the Senate of the United States_:In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 25th of April,requesting certain information concerning lead mines on lands of theUnited States, I herewith transmit a report from the Secretary of War.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _May 7, 1822_._To the House of Representatives_:In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the23d of April, requesting the President of the United States to cause tobe communicated to that House certain information respecting the leadmines of the State of Missouri, I herewith transmit a report of theSecretary of War.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _May 7, 1822_._To the House of Representatives_:In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives ofthe 7th of May, requesting the President to communicate to that Housea letter of Jonathan Russell, esq., referred to in his message of the4th instant, together with such communications as he may have receivedrelative thereto from any of the other ministers of the United Stateswho negotiated the treaty of Ghent, I herewith transmit a report fromthe Secretary of State, with the documents called for by thatresolution.JAMES MONROE.VETO MESSAGE.WASHINGTON, _May 4, 1822_._To the House of Representatives_:Having duly considered the bill entitled "An act for the preservationand repair of the Cumberland road," it is with deep regret, approvingas I do the policy, that I am compelled to object to its passage and toreturn the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated,under a conviction that Congress do not possess the power under theConstitution to pass such a law.A power to establish turnpikes with gates and tolls, and to enforce thecollection of tolls by penalties, implies a power to adopt and execute acomplete system of internal improvement. A right to impose duties to bepaid by all persons passing a certain road, and on horses and carriages,as is done by this bill, involves the right to take the land from theproprietor on a valuation and to pass laws for the protection of theroad from injuries, and if it exist as to one road it exists as to anyother, and to as many roads as Congress may think proper to establish.A right to legislate for one of these purposes is a right to legislatefor the others. It is a complete right of jurisdiction and sovereigntyfor all the purposes of internal improvement, and not merely theright of applying money under the power vested in Congress to makeappropriations, under which power, with the consent of the Statesthrough which this road passes, the work was originally commenced, andhas been so far executed. I am of opinion that Congress do not possessthis power; that the States individually can not grant it, for althoughthey may assent to the appropriation of money within their limits forsuch purposes, they can grant no power of jurisdiction or sovereignty byspecial compacts with the United States. This power can be granted onlyby an amendment to the Constitution and in the mode prescribed by it.If the power exist, it must be either because it has been specificallygranted to the United States or that it is incidental to some powerwhich has been specifically granted. If we examine the specific grantsof power we do not find it among them, nor is it incidental to any powerwhich has been specifically granted.It has never been contended that the power was specifically granted.It is claimed only as being incidental to some one or more of the powerswhich are specifically granted. The following are the powers from whichit is said to be derived:First, from the right to establish post-offices and post-roads; second,from the right to declare war; third, to regulate commerce; fourth,to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare;fifth, from the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carryinginto execution all the powers vested by the Constitution in theGovernment of the United States or in any department or officer thereof;sixth and lastly, from the power to dispose of and make all needfulrules and regulations respecting the territory and other property ofthe United States.According to my judgment it can not be derived from either of thosepowers, nor from all of them united, and in consequence it does notexist.Having stated my objections to the bill, I should now cheerfullycommunicate at large the reasons on which they are founded if I hadtime to reduce them to such form as to include them in this paper. Theadvanced stage of the session renders that impossible. Having at thecommencement of my service in this high trust considered it a duty toexpress the opinion that the United States do not possess the power inquestion, and to suggest for the consideration of Congress the proprietyof recommending to the States an amendment to the Constitution to vestthe power in the United States, my attention has been often drawn to thesubject since, in consequence whereof I have occasionally committed mysentiments to paper respecting it. The form which this exposition hasassumed is not such as I should have given it had it been intended forCongress, nor is it concluded. Nevertheless, as it contains my viewson this subject, being one which I deem of very high importance, andwhich in many of its bearings has now become peculiarly urgent, I willcommunicate it to Congress, if in my power, in the course of the day,or certainly on Monday next.JAMES MONROE.WASHINGTON, _May 4, 1822_._To the House of Representatives_:I transmit the paper alluded to in the message of this day, on thesubject of internal improvements.JAMES MONROE.VIEWS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE SUBJECT OF INTERNALIMPROVEMENTS.It may be presumed that the proposition relating to internalimprovements by roads and canals, which has been several times beforeCongress, will be taken into consideration again either for the purposeof recommending to the States the adoption of an amendment to theConstitution to vest the necessary power in the General Government orto carry the system into effect on the principle that the power hasalready been granted. It seems to be the prevailing opinion that greatadvantage would be derived from the exercise of such a power by Congress.Respecting the right there is much diversity of sentiment. It is of thehighest importance that this question should be settled. If the rightexist, it ought forthwith to be exercised. If it does not exist, surelythose who are friends to the power ought to unite in recommending anamendment to the Constitution to obtain it. I propose to examine thisquestion.The inquiry confined to its proper objects and within the most limitedscale is extensive. Our Government is unlike other governments both inits origin and form. In analyzing it the differences in certain respectsbetween it and those of other nations, ancient and modern, necessarilycome into view. I propose to notice these differences so far as they areconnected with the object of inquiry, and the consequences likely toresult from them, varying in equal degree from those which have attendedother governments. The digression, if it may be so called, will in everyinstance be short and the transition to the main object immediate anddirect.To do justice to the subject it will be necessary to mount to the sourceof power in these States and to pursue this power in its gradations anddistribution among the several departments in which it is now vested.The great division is between the State governments and the GeneralGovernment. If there was a perfect accord in every instance as tothe precise extent of the powers granted to the General Government,we should then know with equal certainty what were the powers whichremained to the State governments, since it would follow that thosewhich were not granted to the one would remain to the other. But it ison this point, and particularly respecting the construction of thesepowers and their incidents, that a difference of opinion exists, andhence it is necessary to trace distinctly the origin of each government,the purposes intended by it, and the means adopted to accomplish them.By having the interior of both governments fully before us we shall haveall the means which can be afforded to enable us to form a correctopinion of the endowments of each.Before the Revolution the present States, then colonies, were separatecommunities, unconnected with each other except in their common relationto the Crown. Their governments were instituted by grants from theCrown, which operated, according to the conditions of each grant, inthe nature of a compact between the settlers in each colony and theCrown. All power not retained in the Crown was vested exclusively inthe colonies, each having a government consisting of an executive, ajudiciary, and a legislative assembly, one branch of which was in everyinstance elected by the people. No office was hereditary, nor did anytitle under the Crown give rank or office in any of the colonies. Inresisting the encroachments of the parent country and abrogating thepower of the Crown the authority which had been held by it vestedexclusively in the people of the colonies, By them was a Congressappointed, composed of delegates from each colony, who managed the war,declared independence, treated with foreign powers, and acted in allthings according to the sense of their constituents. The Declaration ofIndependence confirmed in form what had before existed in substance.It announced to the world new States, possessing and exercising completesovereignty, which they were resolved to maintain. They were soon afterrecognized by France and other powers, and finally by Great Britainherself in 1783.Soon after the power of the Crown was annulled the people of eachcolony established a constitution or frame of government for themselves,in which these separate branches--legislative, executive, andjudiciary--were instituted, each independent of the others. To thesebranches, each having its appropriate portion, the whole power of thepeople not delegated to Congress was communicated, to be exercised fortheir advantage on the representative principle by persons of theirappointment, or otherwise deriving their authority immediately fromthem, and holding their offices for stated terms. All the powersnecessary for useful purposes held by any of the strongest governmentsof the Old World not vested in Congress were imparted to these Stategovernments without other checks than such as are necessary to preventabuse, in the form of fundamental declarations or bills of right. Thegreat difference between our governments and those of the Old Worldconsists in this, that the former, being representative, the persons whoexercise their powers do it not for themselves or in their own right,but for the people, and therefore while they are in the highest degreeefficient they can never become oppressive. It is this transfer ofthe power of the people to representative and responsible bodies inevery branch which constitutes the great improvement in the scienceof government and forms the boast of our system. It combines all theadvantages of every known government without any of their disadvantages.It retains the sovereignty in the people, while it avoids the tumultand disorder incident to the exercise of that power by the peoplethemselves. It possesses all the energy and efficiency of the mostdespotic governments, while it avoids all the oppressions and abusesinseparable from those governments.In every stage of the conflict from its commencement until March,1781, the powers of Congress were undefined, but of vast extent.The assemblies or conventions of the several colonies being formed byrepresentatives from every county in each colony and the Congress bydelegates from each colonial assembly, the powers of the latter forgeneral purposes resembled those of the former for local. They restedon the same basis, the people, and were complete for all the purposescontemplated. Never was a movement so spontaneous, so patriotic, soefficient. The nation exerted its whole faculties in support of itsrights, and of its independence after the contest took that direction,and it succeeded. It was, however, foreseen at a very early stagethat although the patriotism of the country might be relied on inthe struggle for its independence, a well-digested compact would benecessary to preserve it after obtained. A plan of confederation wasin consequence proposed and taken into consideration by Congress evenat the moment when the other great act which severed them from GreatBritain and declared their independence was proclaimed to the world.This compact was ratified on the 21st March, 1781, by the last State,and thereupon carried into immediate effect.The following powers were vested in the United States by the Articlesof Confederation. As this, the first bond of union, was in operationnearly eight years, during which time a practical construction was givento many of its powers, all of which were adopted in the Constitutionwith important additions, it is thought that a correct view of thosepowers and of the manner in which they are executed may shed light onthe subject under consideration. It may fairly be presumed that wherecertain powers were transferred from one instrument to the other andin the same terms, or terms descriptive only of the same powers, thatit was intended that they should be construed in the same sense inthe latter that they were in the former.Article I declares that the style of the Confederacy shall be "TheUnited States of America."Article II. Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, andindependence, and every power and right which is not expressly delegatedto the United States.Article III. The States severally enter into a firm league of friendshipwith each other for their common defense, the security of theirliberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselvesto assist each other against all force offered to or attacks made uponthem on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, etc.Article IV. The free inhabitants of each State, paupers, vagabonds, andfugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all the privilegesand immunities of free citizens in the several States, etc. Fugitivesfrom justice into any of the States shall be delivered up on the demandof the executive of the State from which they fled. Full faith andcredit shall be given in each State to the records and acts of everyother State.Article V. Delegates shall be annually appointed by the legislature ofeach State to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, with apower to recall, etc. No State shall appoint less than two nor more thanseven, nor shall any delegate hold his office for more than three in sixyears. Each State shall maintain its own delegates. Each State shallhave one vote. Freedom of speech shall not be impeached, and the membersshall be protected from arrests, except for treason, etc.Article VI. No State shall send or receive an embassy or enter into atreaty with a foreign power. Nor shall any person holding any office ofprofit or trust under the United States or any State accept any present,emolument, office, or title from a foreign power. Nor shall the UnitedStates or any State grant any title of nobility. No two States shallenter into any treaty without the consent of Congress. No State shalllay any imposts or duties which may interfere with any treaties enteredinto by the United States. No State shall engage in war unless it beinvaded or menaced with invasion by some Indian tribe, nor grant lettersof marque or reprisal unless it be against pirates, nor keep up vesselsof war nor any body of troops in time of peace without the consent ofCongress; but every State shall keep up a well regulated militia, etc.Article VII. When land forces are raised by any State for the commondefense, all officers of and under the rank of colonel shall beappointed by the legislature of each State.Article VIII. All charges of war and all other expenses which shall beincurred for the common defense or general welfare shall be defrayedout of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the severalStates in proportion to the value of all the land in each Stategranted to individuals. The taxes for paying each proportion shallbe levied by the several States.Article IX. Congress shall have the sole and exclusive right and powerof determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned inthe sixth article; of sending and receiving ambassadors; enteringinto alliances, except, etc.; of establishing rules for deciding whatcaptures on land and water shall be legal; of granting letters of marqueand reprisal in time of peace; appointing courts for the trial ofpiracies and felonies on the high seas; for deciding controversiesbetween the States and between individuals claiming lands under two ormore States whose jurisdiction has been adjusted; of regulating thealloy and value of coin struck by their authority and of foreign coin;fixing the standard of weights and measures; regulating the trade withthe Indians; establishing and regulating post offices from one State toanother and throughout all the States, and exacting such postage as maybe requisite to defray the expenses of the office; of appointing allofficers of the land forces except the regimental; appointing all theofficers of the naval forces; to ascertain the necessary sums of moneyto be raised for the service of the United States and appropriate thesame; to borrow money and emit bills of credit; to build and equip aNavy; to agree on the number of land forces and to make requisitionson each State for its quota; that the assent of nine States shall berequisite to these great acts.Article X regulates the powers of the committee of the States to sit inthe recess of Congress.Article XI provides for the admission of Canada into the Confederation.Article XII pledges the faith of the United States for the payment ofall bills of credit issued and money borrowed on their account.Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the UnitedStates on all questions submitted to them by the Confederation, theArticles of the Confederation to be perpetual and not to be alteredwithout the consent of every State.This bond of union was soon found to be utterly incompetent to thepurposes intended by it. It was defective in its powers; it wasdefective also in the means of executing the powers actually granted byit. Being a league of sovereign and independent States, its acts, likethose of all other leagues, required the interposition of the Statescomposing it to give them effect within their respective jurisdictions.The acts of Congress without the aid of State laws to enforce them werealtogether nugatory. The refusal or omission of one State to pass suchlaws was urged as a reason to justify like conduct in others, and thusthe Government was soon at a stand.The experience of a few years demonstrated that the Confederation couldnot be relied on for the security of the blessings which had beenderived from the Revolution. The interests of the nation requireda more efficient Government, which the good sense and virtue of thepeople provided by the adoption of the present Constitution.The Constitution of the United States was formed by a convention ofdelegates from the several States, who met in Philadelphia, dulyauthorized for the purpose, and it was ratified by a convention in eachState which was especially called to consider and decide on the same.In this progress the State governments were never suspended in theirfunctions. On the contrary, they took the lead in it. Conscious of theirincompetency to secure to the Union the blessings of the Revolution,they promoted the diminution of their own powers and the enlargement ofthose of the General Government in the way in which they might be mostadequate and efficient. It is believed that no other example can befound of a Government exerting its influence to lessen its own powers,of a policy so enlightened, of a patriotism so pure and disinterested.The credit, however, is more especially due to the people of each State,in obedience to whose will and under whose control the State governmentsacted.The Constitution of the United States, being ratified by the people ofthe several States, became of necessity to the extent of its powers theparamount authority of the Union. On sound principles it can be viewedin no other light. The people, the highest authority known to oursystem, from whom all our institutions spring and on whom they depend,formed it. Had the people of the several States thought proper toincorporate themselves into one community, under one government, theymight have done it. They had the power, and there was nothing then noris there anything now, should they be so disposed, to prevent it. Theywisely stopped, however, at a certain point, extending the incorporationto that point, making the National Government thus far a consolidatedGovernment, and preserving the State governments without that limitperfectly sovereign and independent of the National Government. Had thepeople of the several States incorporated themselves into one community,they must have remained such, their Constitution becoming then, like theconstitution of the several States, incapable of change until alteredby the will of the majority. In the institution of a State governmentby the citizens of a State a compact is formed to which all and everycitizen are equal parties. They are also the sole parties and may amendit at pleasure. In the institution of the Government of the UnitedStates by the citizens of every State a compact was formed between thewhole American people which has the same force and partakes of all thequalities to the extent of its powers as a compact between the citizensof a State in the formation of their own constitution. It can not bealtered except by those who formed it or in the mode prescribed by theparties to the compact itself.This Constitution was adopted for the purpose of remedying alldefects of the Confederation, and in this it has succeeded beyondany calculation that could have been formed of any human institution.By binding the States together the Constitution performs the greatoffice of the Confederation; but it is in that sense only that it hasany of the properties of that compact, and in that it is more effectualto the purpose, as it holds them together by a much stronger bond; andin all other respects in which the Confederation failed the Constitutionhas been blessed with complete success. The Confederation was a compactbetween separate and independent States, the execution of whosearticles in the powers which operated internally depended on the Stategovernments. But the great office of the Constitution, by incorporatingthe people of the several States to the extent of its powers into onecommunity and enabling it to act directly on the people, was to annulthe powers of the State governments to that extent, except in caseswhere they were concurrent, and to preclude their agency in givingHomeIndex of A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the PresidentsPrevious part (3)Next part (5) Book of the day: Book of the Day