cise their authority in suppressing, so far as in them lies, whatever is cal culated to produce this evil.

In leaving the care of other branches of this interesting subject to the state authorities, to whom they properly belong, it is nevertheless proper for Congress to take such measures as will prevent the postoffice department, which was designed to foster an amicable intercourse and correspondence between all the members of the confederacy, from being used as an instrument of an opposite character. The general government, to which the great trust is confided of preserving inviolate the relations created among the states by the constitution, is especially bound to avoid in its own action, anything that may disturb them. I would, therefore, call the special attention of Congress to the subject, and respectfully suggest the propriety of passing such a law as will prohibit, under severe penalties, the circulation in the southern states, through the mail, of incendiary publications intended to instigate the slaves to insurrection.

I felt it to be my duty, in the first message which I communicated to Congress, to urge upon its attention the propriety of amending that part of the constitution which provides for the election of the president and vicepresident of the United States. The leading object which I had in view was the adoption of some new provisions which would secure to the people the performance of this high duty without any intermediate agency. In my annual communications since, I have enforced the same views, from a sincere conviction that the best interests of the country would be promoted by their adoption. If the subject were an ordinary one, I should have regarded the failure of Congress to act upon it as an indication of their judgment that the disadvantages which belong to the present system were not so great as those which would result from any attainable substitute that had been submitted to their consideration. Recollecting, however, that propositions to introduce a new feature in our fundamental laws can not be too patiently examined, and ought not to be received with favor until the great body of the people are thoroughly impressed with their necessity and value, as a remedy for real evils, I feel that in renewing the recommendation I have heretofore made on this subject, I am not transcending the bounds of a just deference to the sense of Congress, or to the disposition of the people. However much we may differ in the choice of the measures which should guide the administration of the government, there can be but little doubt in the minds of those who are really friendly to the republican features of our system, that one of its most important securities consists in the separation of the legislative and the executive powers, at the same time that each is held responsible to the great source of authority, which is acknowledged to be supreme, in the will of the people constitutionally expressed. My reflection and experience satisfy me that the framers of the constitution, although they were anxious to mark this feature as a settled and fixed principle in the structure of the government, did not adopt all the precautions that were necessary to secure its practical observance, and that we can not be said to have carried into complete effect their intentions until the evils which arise from this organic defect are remedied.

Considering the great extent of our confederacy, the rapid increase of its population, and the diversity of their interests and pursuits, it can no be disguised that, the contingency by which one branch of the legislature is to form itself into an electoral college, can not become one of ordinary occurrence without producing incalculable mischief. What was intended

as the medicine of the constitution in extreme cases, can not be frequently used without changing its character, and sooner or later producing incurable disorder.

Every election by the house of representatives is calculated to lessen the force of that security which is derived from the distinct and separate character of the legislative and executive function, and while it exposes each to temptations adverse to their efficiency as organs of the constitution and laws, its tendency will be to unite both in resisting the will of the people, and thus give a direction to the government anti-republican and dangerous. All history tells us that a free people should be watchful of delegated power, and should never acquiesce in a practice which shall diminish their control over it. This obligation, so universal in its application to all the principles of a republic, is peculiarly so in ours, where the formation of parties, founded on sectional interests, is so much fostered by the extent of our territory. These interests, represented by candidates for the presidency, are constantly prone, in the zeal of party and selfish objects, to generate influences unmindful of the general good, and forgetful of the restraints which the great body of the people would enforce, if they were in no contingency to use the right of expressing their will. The experience of our country, from the formation of the government to the present day, demonstrates that the people can not too soon adopt some stronger safeguard for their right to elect the highest officers known to the constitution, than is contained in that sacred instrument as it now stands.

It is my duty to call the particular attention of Congress to the present condition of the District of Columbia. From whatever cause the great depression has arisen which now exists in the pecuniary concerns of this district, it is proper that its situation should be fully understood, and such relief or remedies provided as are consistent with the powers of Congress. I earnestly recommend the extension of every political right to the citizens of the district which their true interests require, and which does not conflict with the provisions of the constitution. It is believed that the laws for the government of the district require revisal and amendment, and that much good may be done by modifying the penal code, so as to give uniformity to its provisions.

Your attention is also invited to the defects which exist in the judicial system of the United States. As at present organized, the states of the Union derive unequal advantages from the federal judiciary, which have been so often pointed out, that I deem it unnecessary to repeat them here. It is hoped that the present Congress will extend to all the states that equality in respect to the benefits of the laws of the Union which can only be secured by the uniformity and efficiency of the judicial system.

With these observations on the topics of general interest which are deemed worthy of your consideration, I leave them to your care, trusting that the legislative measures they call for will be met as the wants and the best interests of our beloved country demand.

58

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 admit ted 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 dictates 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, here with 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 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

it.