SPECIAL MESSAGE. DECEMBER 9, 1835. To the Senate and House of Representatives :— GENTLEMEN: I herewith communicate, for the information of Congress, a report of the secretary of war, with accompanying documents, showing the progress made during the present year in the astronomical observations made under the act of the 14th of July, 1832, relative to the northern boundary of the state of Ohio. The controversy between the authorities of the state of Ohio and those of the territory of Michigan, in respect to this boundary, assumed about the time of the termination of the last Congress, a very threatening aspect, and much care and exertion were necessary to preserve the jurisdiction of the territorial government under the acts of Congress, and to prevent a forcible collision between the parties. The nature and course of the dispute, and the means taken by the executive for the purpose of composing it, will fully appear in the accompanying report from the secretary of state, and the documents therein referred to. The formation of a state government by the inhabitants of the territory of Michigan, and their application now pending to be admitted into the Union, give additional force to the many important reasons which call for the settlement of this question by Congress at their present session. SPECIAL MESSAGE. DECEMBER 9, 1835. To the Senate and House of Representatives: GENTLEMEN: By the act of the 11th January, 1805, all that part of the Indian territory lying north of a line drawn due "east from the southerly bend or extreme of Lake Michigan until it shall intersect Lake Erie, and east of a line drawn from the said southerly bend through the middle of said lake to its northern extremity, and thence due north to the northern boundary of the United States," was erected into a separate territory, by the name of Michigan. The territory comprised within these limits being part of the district of country described in the ordinance of the 13th of July, 1787, which provides, that," when any of the states into which the same should be divided, should have sixty thousand free inhabitants, such state should be admitted by its delegates into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original state in all respects whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent constitution and state government, provided, the constitution and state government so to be formed, shall be republican, and in conformity to the principles contained in these articles," &c. The inhabitants thereof have, during the present year, in pursuance of the right secured by the ordinance, formed a constitution and state government. That instrument, together with various other documents connected therewith, has been transmitted to me for the purpose of being laid before Con gress, to whom the power and duty of admitting new states into the Union exclusively appertains; and the whole are here with communicated for your early decision. FRENCH MESSAGE. JANUARY 15, 1836. To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:GENTLEMEN: In my message at the opening of your session, I informed you that our chargé d'affaires at Paris had been instructed to ask for the final determination of the French government, in relation to the payment of the indemnification secured by the treaty of the 4th of July, 1831, and that, when advices on the result should be received, it would be made the subject of a special communication. In execution of this design, I now transmit to you the papers numbered from 1 to 13, inclusive, containing, among other things, the correspondence on this subject between our chargé d'affaires and the French minister of foreign affairs, from which it will be seen, that France requires as a condition precedent to the execution of a treaty unconditionally ratified, and to the payment of a debt acknowledged by all the branches of her government to be due, that certain explanations shall be made of which she dic tates the terms. These terms are such as that government has already been officially informed can not be complied with; and if persisted in, they must be considered as a deliberate refusal on the part of France to fulfil engagements, binding by the laws of nations, and held sacred by the whole civilized world. The nature of the act which France requires from this government, is clearly set forth in the letter of the French minister, marked No. 4. We will pay the money, says he, when "the government of the United States is ready on its part to declare to us, by addressing its claim to us officially, in writing, that it regrets the misunderstanding which has arisen between the two countries; that this misunderstanding is founded on a mistake; that it never entered into its intention to call to question the good faith of the French government, nor to take a menacing attitude toward France;" and he adds, " if the government of the United States does not give this assurance, we shall be obliged to think that this misunderstanding is not the result of error." In the letter marked No. 6, the French minister also remarks that," the government of the United States knows that upon itself depends henceforward the execution of the treaty of July 4, 1831.” Obliged, by the precise language thus used by the French minister, to view it as a peremptory refusal to execute the treaty, except on terms incompatible with the honor and independence of the United States, and persuaded that, on considering the correspondence now submitted to you, you can regard it in no other light, it becomes my duty to call your attention to such measures as the exigency of the case demands, if the claim of interfering in the communications between the different branches of our government shall be persisted in. This pretension is rendered the more unreasonable by the fact that the substance of the required explanation has been repeatedly and voluntarily given before it was insisted on as a condition-a condition the more humiliating because it is demanded as the equivalent of a pecuniary consideration. Does France desire only a declaration that we had no intention to obtain our rights by an address to her fears rather than to her justice? She has already had it, frankly and explicitly given by our minister accredited to her government, his act ratified by me, and my confirmation of it officially communicated by him, in his letter to the French minister of foreign affairs, on the 25th of April, 1835, and repeated by my published approval of that letter after the passage of the bill of indemnification. Does France want a degrading, servile repetition of this act, in terms which she shall dictate, and which will involve an acknowledgment of her assumed right to interfere in our domestic councils? She will never obtain it. The spirit of the American people, the dignity of the legislature, and the firm resolve of their executive government, forbid it. As the answer of the French minister to our chargé d'affaires at Paris, contains an allusion to a letter addressed by him to the representative of France at this place, it now becomes proper to lay before you the correspondence had between that functionary and the secretary of state relative to that letter, and to accompany the same with such explanations as will enable you to understand the course of the executive in regard to it. Recurring to the historical statement made at the commencement of your session, of the origin and progress of our difficulties with France, it will be recollected that, on the return of our minister to the United States, I caused my official approval of the explanations he had given to the French minister of foreign affairs, to be made public. As the French government had noticed the message without its being officially communicated, it was not doubted that, if they were disposed to pay the money due to us, they would notice any public explanation of the government of the United States in the same way. But, contrary to these well-founded expectations, the French ministry did not take this fair opportunity to relieve themselves from their unfortunate position, and to do justice to the United States. While, however, the government of the United States was awaiting the movements of the French government, in perfect confidence that the difficulty was at an end, the secretary of state received a call from the French chargé d'affaires in Washington, who desired to read to him a letter he had received from the French minister of foreign affairs. He was asked whether he was instructed or directed to make any official communication, and replied that he was only authorized to read the letter, and furnish a copy if requested. The substance of its contents, it is presumed, may be gathered from Nos. 4 and 6, herewith transmitted. It was an attempt to make known to the government of the United States, privately, in what manner it could make explanations, apparently voluntarily, but really dictated by France, acceptable to her, and thus obtain payment of the twentyfive millions of francs. No exception was taken to this mode of communication, which is often used to prepare the way for official intercourse, but the suggestions made in it were in their substance wholly inadmissible. Not being in the shape of an official communication to this government, it did not admit of reply or official notice, nor could it safely be made the basis of any action by the executive or the legislature, and the secretary of state did not think proper to ask a copy, because he could have no use for it. Copies of papers, marked Nos. 9, 10, and 11, show an attempt on the part of the French chargé d'affaires, many weeks afterward, to place a copy of this paper among the archives of this government, which, for obvious reasons, was not allowed to be done; but the assurance before given was repeated, that any official communication which he might be authorized to make in the accustomed form, would receive a prompt and just consideration. The indiscretion of this attempt was made more manifest by the subsequent avowal of the French chargé d'affaires, that the object was to bring this letter before Congress and the American people. If foreign agents, on a subject of disagreement between their governments and this, wish to prefer an appeal to the American people, they will hereafter, it is hoped, better appreciate their own rights, and the respect due to others, than to attempt to use the executive as the passive organ of their communications. It is due to the character of our institutions, that the diplomatic intercourse of this government should be conducted with the utmost directness and simplicity, and that, in all cases of importance, the communications received or made by the executive should assume the accustomed official form. It is only by insisting on this form, that foreign powers can be held to full responsibility; that their communications can be officially replied to; or that the advice or interference of the legislature can, with propriety, be invited by the president. This course is also best calculated, on the one hand, to shield that officer from unjust suspicions, and on the other, to subject this portion of his acts to public scrutiny; and, if occasion should require it, to constitutional animadversion. It was the more necessary to adhere to these principles in the instance in question, inasmuch as, in addition to other important interests, it very intimately concerns the national honor; a matter in my judgment much too sacred to be made the subject of private and unofficial negotiation. It will be perceived that this letter of the French minister of foreign affairs was read to the secretary of state on the 11th of September last. This was the first authentic indication of the specific views of the French government, received by the government of the United States after the passage of the bill of indemnification. Inasmuch as the letter had been written before the official notice of my approval of Mr. Livingston's last explanation and remonstrance could have reached Paris, just ground of hope was left, as has been before stated, that the French government, on receiving that information, in the same manner as the alleged offensive message had reached them, would desist from their extraordinary demand, and pay the money at once. To give them an opportunity to do so, and, at all events, to elicit their final determination, and the ground they intended to occupy, the instructions were given to our chargé d'affaires, which were adverted to at the commencement of the present session of Congress. The result, as you have seen, is a demand of an official written expression of regrets, and a direct explanation addressed to France, with a distinct intimation that this is a sine quâ non. Mr. Barton having, in pursuance of his instructions, returned to the United States, and the chargé d'affaires of France having been recalled, all diplomatic intercourse between the two countries is suspended a state of things originating in an unreasonable susceptibility on the part of the French government, and rendered necessary on our part by their refusal to perform engagements contained in a treaty, from the faithful performance of which by us they are to this day enjoying many important commercial advantages. It is time that this unequal position of affairs should cease, and that legislative action should be brought to sustain executive exertion in such meas ures as the case requires. While France persists in her refusal to comply with the terms of a treaty, the object of which was, by removing all causes of mutual complaint, to renew ancient feelings of friendship, and to unite the two nations in the bonds of amity and of a mutually beneficial commerce, she can not justly complain if we adopt such peaceful remedies as the law of nations and the circumstances of the case may authorize and demand. Of the nature of these remedies I have heretofore had occasion to speak, and, in reference to a particular contingency, to express my conviction that reprisals would be best adapted to the emergency then contemplated. Since that period, France, by all the departments of her government, has acknowledged the validity of our claims, and the obligations of the treaty, and has appropriated the moneys which are necessary to its execution; and though payment is withheld on grounds vitally important to our existence as an independent nation, it is not to be believed that she can have determined permanently to retain a position so utterly indefensible. In the altered state of the questions in controversy, under all existing circumstances, it appears to me, that, until such a determination shall have become evident, it will be proper and sufficient to retaliate her present refusal to comply with her engagements, by prohibiting the introduction of French products and the entry of French vessels into our ports. Between this and the interdiction of all commercial intercourse, or other remedies, you, as the representatives of the people, must determine. I recommend the former in the present posture of our affairs, as being the least injurious to our commerce, and as attended with the least difficulty of returning to the usual state of friendly intercourse, if the government of France shall render us the justice that is due, and also as a proper preliminary step to stronger measures, should their adoption be rendered necessary by subsequent events. The return of our chargé d'affaires is attended with public notices of naval preparations on the part of France, destined for our seas. Of the cause and intent of these armaments I have no authentic information, nor any other means of judging, except such as are common to yourselves and to the public; but whatever may be their object, we are not at liberty to regard them as unconnected with the measures which hostile movements on the part of France may compel us to pursue. They at least deserve to be met by adequate preparation on our part, and I therefore strongly urge large and speedy appropriations for the increase of the navy, and the completion of our coast defences. If this array of military force be really designed to affect the action of the government and the people of the United States, on the questions now pending between the two nations, then indeed would it be dishonorable to pause a moment on the alternative which such a state of things would present to us. Come what may, the explanation which France demands can never be accorded; and no armament, however powerful and imposing, at a distance or on our coast, will, I trust, deter us from discharging the high duties which we owe to our constituents, our national character, and to the world. The house of representatives, at the close of the last session of Congress, unanimously resolved that the treaty of the 4th of July, 1831, should be maintained, and its execution insisted on by the United States. It is due to the welfare of the human race, not less than to our own interests and honor, that this resolution should at all hazards be adhered to. If, after so signal an example as that given by the American people, during their |
