Contents    Prev    Next    Last

President[ James Polk

         Date[ December 8, 1846

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

In resuming your labors in the service of the people it is a subject of

congratulation that there has been no period in our past history when all

the elements of national prosperity have been so fully developed. Since

your last session no afflicting dispensation has visited our country.

General good health has prevailed, abundance has crowned the toil of the

husbandman, and labor in all its branches is receiving an ample reward,

while education, science, and the arts are rapidly enlarging the means of

social happiness. The progress of our country in her career of greatness,

not only in the vast extension of our territorial limits and the rapid

increase of our population, but in resources and wealth and in the happy

condition of our people, is without an example in the history of nations.

As the wisdom, strength, and beneficence of our free institutions are

unfolded, every day adds fresh motives to contentment and fresh incentives

to patriotism.

Our devout and sincere acknowledgments are due to the gracious Giver of All

Good for the numberless blessings which our beloved country enjoys.

It is a source of high satisfaction to know that the relations of the

United States with all other nations, with a single exception, are of the

most amicable character. Sincerely attached to the policy of peace early

adopted and steadily pursued by this Government, I have anxiously desired

to cultivate and cherish friendship and commerce with every foreign power.

The spirit and habits of the American people are favorable to the

maintenance of such international harmony. In adhering to this wise policy,

a preliminary and paramount duty obviously consists in the protection of

our national interests from encroachment or sacrifice and our national

honor from reproach. These must be maintained at any hazard. They admit of

no compromise or neglect, and must be scrupulously and constantly guarded.

In their vigilant vindication collision and conflict with foreign powers

may sometimes become unavoidable. Such has been our scrupulous adherence to

the dictates of justice in all our foreign intercourse that, though

steadily and rapidly advancing in prosperity and power, we have given no

just cause of complaint to any nation and have enjoyed the blessings of

peace for more than thirty years. From a policy so sacred to humanity and

so salutary in its effects upon our political system we should never be

induced voluntarily to depart.

The existing war with Mexico was neither desired nor provoked by the United

States. On the contrary, all honorable means were resorted to to avert it.

After years of endurance of aggravated and unredressed wrongs on our part,

Mexico, in violation of solemn treaty stipulations and of every principle

of justice recognized by civilized nations, commenced hostilities, and thus

by her own act forced the war upon us. Long before the advance of our Army

to the left bank of the Rio Grande we had ample cause of war against

Mexico, and had the United States resorted to this extremity we might have

appealed to the whole civilized world for the justice of our cause. I deem

it to be my duty to present to you on the present occasion a condensed

review of the injuries we had sustained, of the causes which led to the

war, and of its progress since its commencement. This is rendered the more

necessary because of the misapprehensions which have to some extent

prevailed as to its origin and true character. The war has been represented

as unjust and unnecessary and as one of aggression on our part upon a weak

and injured enemy. Such erroneous views, though entertained by but few,

have been widely and extensively circulated, not only at home, but have

been spread throughout Mexico and the whole world. A more effectual means

could not have been devised to encourage the enemy and protract the war

than to advocate and adhere to their cause, and thus give them "aid and

comfort." It is a source of national pride and exultation that the great

body of our people have thrown no such obstacles in the way of the

Government in prosecuting the war successfully, but have shown themselves

to be eminently patriotic and ready to vindicate their country's honor and

interests at any sacrifice. The alacrity and promptness with which our

volunteer forces rushed to the field on their country's call prove not only

their patriotism, but their deep conviction that our cause is just.

The wrongs which we have suffered from Mexico almost ever since she became

an independent power and the patient endurance with which we have borne

them are without a parallel in the history of modern civilized nations.

There is reason to believe that if these wrongs had been resented and

resisted in the first instance the present war might have been avoided. One

outrage, however, permitted to pass with impunity almost necessarily

encouraged the perpetration of another, until at last Mexico seemed to

attribute to weakness and indecision on our part a forbearance which was

the offspring of magnanimity and of a sincere desire to preserve friendly

relations with a sister republic.

Scarcely had Mexico achieved her independence, which the United States were

the first among the nations to acknowledge, when she commenced the system

of insult and spoliation which she has ever since pursued. Our citizens

engaged in lawful commerce were imprisoned, their vessels seized, and our

flag insulted in her ports. If money was wanted, the lawless seizure and

confiscation of our merchant vessels and their cargoes was a ready

resource, and if to accomplish their purposes it became necessary to

imprison the owners, captains, and crews, it was done. Rulers superseded

rulers in Mexico in rapid succession, but still there was no change in this

system of depredation. The Government of the United States made repeated

reclamations on behalf of its citizens, but these were answered by the

perpetration of new outrages. Promises of redress made by Mexico in the

most solemn forms were postponed or evaded. The files and records of the

Department of State contain conclusive proofs of numerous lawless acts

perpetrated upon the property and persons of our citizens by Mexico, and of

wanton insults to our national flag. The interposition of our Government to

obtain redress was again and again invoked under circumstances which no

nation ought to disregard. It was hoped that these outrages would cease and

that Mexico would be restrained by the laws which regulate the conduct of

civilized nations in their intercourse with each other after the treaty of

amity, commerce, and navigation of the 5th of April, 1831, was concluded

between the two Republics; but this hope soon proved to be vain. The course

of seizure and confiscation of the property of our citizens, the violation

of their persons, and the insults to our flag pursued by Mexico previous to

that time were scarcely suspended for even a brief period, although the

treaty so clearly defines the rights and duties of the respective parties

that it is impossible to misunderstand or mistake them. In less than seven

years after the conclusion of that treaty our grievances had become so

intolerable that in the opinion of President Jackson they should no longer

be endured. In his message to Congress in February, 1837, he presented them

to the consideration of that body, and declared that--

The length of time since some of the injuries have been committed, the

repeated and unavailing applications for redress, the wanton character of

some of the outrages upon the property and persons of our citizens, upon

the officers and flag of the United States, independent of recent insults

to this Government and people by the late extraordinary Mexican minister,

would justify in the eyes of all nations immediate war.

In a spirit of kindness and forbearance, however, he recommended reprisals

as a milder mode of redress. He declared that war should not be used as a

remedy "by just and generous nations, confiding in their strength for

injuries committed, if it can be honorably avoided," and added:

It has occurred to me that, considering the present embarrassed condition

of that country, we should act with both wisdom and moderation by giving to

Mexico one more opportunity to atone for the past before we take redress

into our Own hands. To avoid all misconception on the part of Mexico, as

well as to protect our own national character from reproach, this

opportunity should be given with the avowed design and full preparation to

take immediate satisfaction if it should not be obtained on a repetition of

the demand for it. To this end I recommend that an act be passed

authorizing reprisals, and the use of the naval force of the United States

by the Executive against Mexico to enforce them, in the event of a refusal

by the Mexican Government to come to an amicable adjustment of the matters

in controversy between us upon another demand thereof made from on board

out of our vessels of war on the coast of Mexico.

Committees of both Houses of Congress, to which this message of the

President was referred, fully sustained his views of the character of the

wrongs which we had suffered from Mexico, and recommended that another

demand for redress should be made before authorizing war or reprisals. The

Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, in their report, say:

After such a demand, should prompt justice be refused by the Mexican

Government, we may appeal to all nations, not only for the equity and

moderation with which we shall have acted toward a sister republic, but for

the necessity which will then compel us to seek redress for our wrongs,

either by actual war or by reprisals. The subject will then be presented

before Congress, at the commencement of the next session, in a clear and

distinct form, and the committee can not doubt but that such measures will

be immediately adopted as may be necessary to vindicate the honor of the

country and insure ample reparation to our injured fellow-citizens.

The Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives made a

similar recommendation. In their report they say that--

They fully concur with the President that ample cause exists for taking

redress into our own hands, and believe that we should be justified in the

opinion of other nations for taking such a step. But they are willing to

try the experiment of another demand, made in the most solemn form, upon

the justice of the Mexican Government before any further proceedings are

adopted.

No difference of opinion upon the subject is believed to have existed in

Congress at that time; the executive and legislative departments concurred;

and yet such has been our forbearance and desire to preserve peace with

Mexico that the wrongs of which we then complained, and which gave rise to

these solemn proceedings, not only remain unredressed to this day, but

additional causes of complaint of an aggravated character have ever since

been accumulating. Shortly after these proceedings a special messenger was

dispatched to Mexico to make a final demand for redress, and on the 20th of

July, 1837, the demand was made. The reply of the Mexican Government bears

date on the 29th of the same month, and contains assurances of the "anxious

wish" of the Mexican Government "not to delay the moment of that final and

equitable adjustment which is to terminate the existing difficulties

between the two Governments;" that "nothing should be left undone which may

contribute to the most speedy and equitable determination of the subjects

which have so seriously engaged the attention of the American Government;"

that the "Mexican Government would adopt as the only guides for its conduct

the plainest principles of public right, the sacred obligations imposed by

international law, and the religious faith of treaties," and that "whatever

reason and justice may dictate respecting each case will be done." The

assurance was further given that the decision of the Mexican Government

upon each cause of complaint for which redress had been demanded should be

communicated to the Government of the United States by the Mexican minister

at Washington.

These solemn assurances in answer to our demand for redress were

disregarded. By making them, however, Mexico obtained further delay.

President Van Buren, in his annual message to Congress of the 5th of

December, 1837, states that "although the larger number" of our demands for

redress, "and many of them aggravated cases of personal wrongs, have been

now for years before the Mexican Government, and some of the causes of

national complaint, and those of the most offensive character, admitted of

immediate, simple, and satisfactory replies, it is only within a few days

past that any specific communication in answer to our last demand, made

five months ago, has been received from the Mexican minister;" and that

"for not one of our public complaints has satisfaction been given or

offered, that but one of the cases of personal wrong has been favorably

considered, and that but four cases of both descriptions out of all those

formally presented and earnestly pressed have as yet been decided upon by

the Mexican Government." President Van Buren, believing that it would be

vain to make any further attempt to obtain redress by the ordinary means

within the power of the Executive, communicated this opinion to Congress in

the message referred to, in which he said:

On a careful and deliberate examination of their contents of the

correspondence with the Mexican Government, and considering the spirit

manifested by the Mexican Government, it has become my painful duty to

return the subject as it now stands to Congress, to whom it belongs to

decide upon the time, the mode, and the measure of redress.

Had the United States at that time adopted compulsory measures and taken

redress into their own hands, all our difficulties with Mexico would

probably have been long since adjusted and the existing war have been

averted. Magnanimity and moderation on our part only had the effect to

complicate these difficulties and render an amicable settlement of them the

more embarrassing. That such measures of redress under similar provocations

committed by any of the powerful nations of Europe would have been promptly

resorted to by the United States can not be doubted. The national honor and

the preservation of the national character throughout the world, as well as

our own self-respect and the protection due to our own citizens, would have

rendered such a resort indispensable. The history of no civilized nation in

modern times has presented within so brief a period so many wanton attacks

upon the honor of its flag and upon the property and persons of its

citizens as had at that time been borne by the United States from the

Mexican authorities and people. But Mexico was a sister republic on the

North American continent, occupying a territory contiguous to our own, and

was in a feeble and distracted condition, and these considerations, it is

presumed, induced Congress to forbear still longer.

Instead of taking redress into our own hands, a new negotiation was entered

upon with fair promises on the part of Mexico, but with the real purpose,

as the event has proved, of indefinitely postponing the reparation which we

demanded, and which was so justly due. This negotiation, after more than a

year's delay, resulted in the convention of the 11th of April, 1839, "for

the adjustment of claims of citizens of the United States of America upon

the Government of the Mexican Republic." The joint board of commissioners

created by this convention to examine and decide upon these claims was not

organized until the month of August, 1840, and under the terms of the

convention they were to terminate their duties within eighteen months from

that time. Four of the eighteen months were consumed in preliminary

discussions on frivolous and dilatory points raised by the Mexican

commissioners, and it was not until the month of December, 1840, that they

commenced the examination of the claims of our citizens upon Mexico.

Fourteen months only remained to examine and decide upon these numerous and

complicated cases. In the month of February, 1842, the term of the

commission expired, leaving many claims undisposed of for want of time. The

claims which were allowed by the board and by the umpire authorized by the

convention to decide in case of disagreement between the Mexican and

American commissioners amounted to $2,026,139.68. There were pending before

the umpire when the commission expired additional claims, which had been

examined and awarded by the American commissioners and had not been allowed

by the Mexican commissioners, amounting to $928,627.88, upon which he did

not decide, alleging that his authority had ceased with the termination of

the joint commission. Besides these claims, there were others of American

citizens amounting to $3,336,837.05, which had been submitted to the board,

and upon which they had not time to decide before their final adjournment.

The sum of $2,026,139.68, which had been awarded to the claimants, was a

liquidated and ascertained debt due by Mexico, about which there could be

no dispute, and which she was bound to pay according to the terms of the

convention. Soon after the final awards for this amount had been made the

Mexican Government asked for a postponement of the time of making payment,

alleging that it would be inconvenient to make the payment at the time

stipulated. In the spirit of forbearing kindness toward a sister republic,

which Mexico has so long abused, the United States promptly complied with

her request. A second convention was accordingly concluded between the two

Governments on the 30th of January, 1843, which upon its face declares that

"this new arrangement is entered into for the accommodation of Mexico." By

the terms of this convention all the interest due on the awards which had

been made in favor of the claimants under the convention of the 11th of

April, 1839, was to be paid to them on the 30th of April, 1843, and "the

principal of the said awards and the interest accruing thereon" was

stipulated to "be paid in five years, in equal installments every three

months." Notwithstanding this new convention was entered into at the

request of Mexico and for the purpose of relieving her from embarrassment,

the claimants have only received the interest due on the 30th of April,

1843, and three of the twenty installments. Although the payment of the sum

thus liquidated and confessedly due by Mexico to our citizens as indemnity

for acknowledged acts of outrage and wrong was secured by treaty, the

obligations of which are ever held sacred by all just nations, yet Mexico

has violated this solemn engagement by failing and refusing to make the

payment. The two installments due in April and July, 1844, under the

peculiar circumstances connected with them, have been assumed by the United

States and discharged to the claimants, but they are still due by Mexico.

But this is not all of which we have just cause of complaint. To provide a

remedy for the claimants whose cases were not decided by the joint

commission under the convention of April 11, 1839, it was expressly

stipulated by the sixth article of the convention of the 30th of January,

1843, that--

A new convention shall be entered into for the settlement of all claims of

the Government and citizens of the United States against the Republic of

Mexico which were not finally decided by the late commission which met in

the city of Washington, and of all claims of the Government and citizens of

Mexico against the United States.

In conformity with this stipulation, a third convention was concluded and

signed at the city of Mexico on the 20th of November, 1843, by the

plenipotentiaries of the two Governments, by which provision was made for

ascertaining and paying these claims. In January, 1844, this convention was

ratified by the Senate of the United States with two amendments, which were

manifestly reasonable in their character. Upon a reference of the

amendments proposed to the Government of Mexico, the same evasions,

difficulties, and delays were interposed which have so long marked the

policy of that Government toward the United States. It has not even yet

decided whether it would or would not accede to them, although the subject

has been repeatedly pressed upon its consideration. Mexico has thus

violated a second time the faith of treaties by failing or refusing to

carry into effect the sixth article of the convention of January, 1843.

Such is the history of the wrongs which we have suffered and patiently

endured from Mexico through a long series of years. So far from affording

reasonable satisfaction for the injuries and insults we had borne, a great

aggravation of them consists in the fact that while the United States,

anxious to preserve a good understanding with Mexico, have been constantly

but vainly employed in seeking redress for past wrongs, new outrages were

constantly occurring, which have continued to increase our causes of

complaint and to swell the amount of our demands. While the citizens of the

United States were conducting a lawful commerce with Mexico under the

guaranty of a treaty of "amity, commerce, and navigation," many of them

have suffered all the injuries which would have resulted from open war.

This treaty, instead of affording protection to our citizens, has been the

means of inviting them into the ports of Mexico that they might be, as they

have been in numerous instances, plundered of their property and deprived

of their personal liberty if they dared insist on their rights. Had the

unlawful seizures of American property and the violation of the personal

liberty of our citizens, to say nothing of the insults to our flag, which

have occurred in the ports of Mexico taken place on the high seas, they

would themselves long since have constituted a state of actual war between

the two countries. In so long suffering Mexico to violate her most solemn

treaty obligations, plunder our citizens of their property, and imprison

their persons without affording them any redress we have failed to perform

one of the first and highest duties which every government owes to its

citizens, and the consequence has been that many of them have been reduced

from a state of affluence to bankruptcy. The proud name of American

citizen, which ought to protect all who bear it from insult and injury

throughout the world, has afforded no such protection to our citizens in

Mexico. We had ample cause of war against Mexico long before the breaking

out of hostilities; but even then we forbore to take redress into our own

hands until Mexico herself became the aggressor by invading our soil in

hostile array and shedding the blood of our citizens.

Such are the grave causes of complaint on the part of the United States

against Mexico--causes which existed long before the annexation of Texas to

the American Union; and yet, animated by the love of peace and a

magnanimous moderation, we did not adopt those measures of redress which

under such circumstances are the justified resort of injured nations.

The annexation of Texas to the United States constituted no just cause of

offense to Mexico. The pretext that it did so is wholly inconsistent and

irreconcilable with well-authenticated facts connected with the revolution

by which Texas became independent of Mexico. That this may be the more

manifest, it may be proper to advert to the causes and to the history of

the principal events of that revolution.

Texas constituted a portion of the ancient Province of Louisiana, ceded to

the United States by France in the year 1803. In the year 1819 the United

States, by the Florida treaty, ceded to Spain all that part of Louisiana

within the present limits of Texas, and Mexico, by the revolution which

separated her from Spain and rendered her an independent nation, succeeded

to the rights of the mother country over this territory. In the year 1824

Mexico established a federal constitution, under which the Mexican Republic

was composed of a number of sovereign States confederated together in a

federal union similar to our own. Each of these States had its own

executive, legislature, and judiciary, and for all except federal purposes

was as independent of the General Government and that of the other States

as is Pennsylvania or Virginia under our Constitution. Texas and Coahuila

united and formed one of these Mexican States. The State constitution which

they adopted, and which was approved by the Mexican Confederacy, asserted

that they were "free and independent of the other Mexican United States and

of every other power and dominion whatsoever," and proclaimed the great

principle of human liberty that "the sovereignty of the state resides

originally and essentially in the general mass of the individuals who

compose it." To the Government under this constitution, as well as to that

under the federal constitution, the people of Texas owed allegiance.

Emigrants from foreign countries, including the United States, were invited

by the colonization laws of the State and of the Federal Government to

settle in Texas. Advantageous terms were offered to induce them to leave

their own country and become Mexican citizens. This invitation was accepted

by many of our citizens in the full faith that in their new home they would

be governed by laws enacted by representatives elected by themselves, and

that their lives, liberty, and property would be protected by

constitutional guaranties similar to those which existed in the Republic

they had left. Under a Government thus organized they continued until the

year 1835, when a military revolution broke out in the City of Mexico which

entirely subverted the federal and State constitutions and placed a

military dictator at the head of the Government. By a sweeping decree of a

Congress subservient to the will of the Dictator the several State

constitutions were abolished and the States themselves converted into mere

departments of the central Government. The people of Texas were unwilling

to submit to this usurpation. Resistance to such tyranny became a high

duty. Texas was fully absolved from all allegiance to the central

Government of Mexico from the moment that Government had abolished her

State constitution and in its place substituted an arbitrary and despotic

central government. Such were the principal causes of the Texan revolution.

The people of Texas at once determined upon resistance and flew to arms. In

the midst of these important and exciting events, however, they did not

omit to place their liberties upon a secure and permanent foundation. They

elected members to a convention, who in the month of March, 1836, issued a

formal declaration that their "political connection with the Mexican nation

has forever ended, and that the people of Texas do now constitute a free,

sovereign, and independent Republic, and are fully invested with all the

rights and attributes which properly belong to independent nations." They

also adopted for their government a liberal republican constitution. About

the same time Santa Anna, then the Dictator of Mexico, invaded Texas with a

numerous army for the purpose of subduing her people and enforcing

obedience to his arbitrary and despotic Government. On the 21st of April,

1836, he was met by the Texan citizen soldiers, and on that day was

achieved by them the memorable victory of San Jacinto, by which they

conquered their independence. Considering the numbers engaged on the

respective sides, history does not record a more brilliant achievement.

Santa Anna himself was among the captives.

In the month of May, 1836, Santa Anna acknowledged by a treaty with the

Texan authorities in the most solemn form "the full, entire, and perfect

independence of the Republic of Texas." It is true he was then a prisoner

of war, but it is equally true that he had failed to reconquer Texas, and

had met with signal defeat; that his authority had not been revoked, and

that by virtue of this treaty he obtained his personal release. By it

hostilities were suspended, and the army which had invaded Texas under his

command returned in pursuance of this arrangement unmolested to Mexico.

From the day that the battle of San Jacinto was fought until the present

hour Mexico has never possessed the power to reconquer Texas. In the

language of the Secretary of State of the United States in a dispatch to

our minister in Mexico under date of the 8th of July, 1842--

Mexico may have chosen to consider, and may still choose to consider, Texas

as having been at all times since 1835, and as still continuing, a

rebellious province; but the world has been obliged to take a very

different view of the matter. From the time of the battle of San Jacinto,

in April, 1836, to the present moment, Texas has exhibited the same

external signs of national independence as Mexico herself, and with quite

as much stability of government. Practically free and independent,

acknowledged as a political sovereignty by the principal powers of the

world, no hostile foot finding rest within her territory for six or seven

years, and Mexico herself refraining for all that period from any further

attempt to reestablish her own authority over that territory, it can not

but be surprising to find Mr. De Bocanegra the secretary of foreign affairs

of Mexico complaining that for that whole period citizens of the United

States or its Government have been favoring the rebels of Texas and

supplying them with vessels, ammunition, and money, as if the war for the

reduction of the Province of Texas had been constantly prosecuted by

Mexico, and her success prevented by these influences from abroad.

In the same dispatch the Secretary of State affirms that--

Since 1837 the United States have regarded Texas as an independent

sovereignty as much as Mexico, and that trade and commerce with citizens of

a government at war with Mexico can not on that account be regarded as an

intercourse by which assistance and succor are given to Mexican rebels. The

whole current of Mr. De Bocanegra's remarks runs in the same direction, as

if the independence of Texas had not been acknowledged. It has been

acknowledged; it was acknowledged in 1837 against the remonstrance and

protest of Mexico, and most of the acts of any importance of which Mr. De

Bocanegra complains flow necessarily from that recognition. He speaks of

Texas as still being "an integral part of the territory of the Mexican

Republic," but he can not but understand that the United States do not so

regard it. The real complaint of Mexico, therefore, is in substance neither

more nor less than a complaint against the recognition of Texan

independence. It may be thought rather late to repeat that complaint, and

not quite just to confine it to the United States to the exemption of

England, France, and Belgium, unless the United States, having been the

first to acknowledge the independence of Mexico herself, are to be blamed

for setting an example for the recognition of that of Texas.

And he added that--

The Constitution, public treaties, and the laws oblige the President to

regard Texas as an independent state, and its territory as no part of the

territory of Mexico.

Texas had been an independent state, with an organized government, defying

the power of Mexico to overthrow or reconquer her, for more than ten years

before Mexico commenced the present war against the United States. Texas

had given such evidence to the world of her ability to maintain her

separate existence as an independent nation that she had been formally

recognized as such not only by the United States, but by several of the

principal powers of Europe. These powers had entered into treaties of

amity, commerce, and navigation with her. They had received and accredited

her ministers and other diplomatic agents at their respective courts, and

they had commissioned ministers and diplomatic agents on their part to the

Government of Texas. If Mexico, notwithstanding all this and her utter

inability to subdue or reconquer Texas, still stubbornly refused to

recognize her as an independent nation, she was none the less so on that

account. Mexico herself had been recognized as an independent nation by the

United States and by other powers many years before Spain, of which before

her revolution she had been a colony, would agree to recognize her as such;

and yet Mexico was at that time in the estimation of the civilized world,

and in fact, none the less an independent power because Spain still claimed

her as a colony. If Spain had continued until the present period to assert

that Mexico was one of her colonies in rebellion against her, this would

not have made her so or changed the fact of her independent existence.

Texas at the period of her annexation to the United States bore the same

relation to Mexico that Mexico had borne to Spain for many years before

Spain acknowledged her independence, with this important difference, that

before the annexation of Texas to the United States was consummated Mexico

herself, by a formal act of her Government, had acknowledged the

independence of Texas as a nation. It is true that in the act of

recognition she prescribed a condition which she had no power or authority

to impose--that Texas should not annex herself to any other power--but this

could not detract in any degree from the recognition which Mexico then made

of her actual independence. Upon this plain statement of facts, it is

absurd for Mexico to allege as a pretext for commencing hostilities against

the United States that Texas is still a part of her territory.

But there are those who, conceding all this to be true, assume the ground

that the true western boundary of Texas is the Nueces instead of the Rio

Grande, and that therefore in marching our Army to the east bank of the

latter river we passed the Texan line and invaded the territory of Mexico.

A simple statement of facts known to exist will conclusively refute such an

assumption. Texas, as ceded to the United States by France in 1803, has

been always claimed as extending west to the Rio Grande or Rio Bravo. This

fact is established by the authority of our most eminent statesmen at a

period when the question was as well, if not better, understood than it is

at present. During Mr. Jefferson's Administration Messrs. Monroe and

Pinckney, who had been sent on a special mission to Madrid, charged among

other things with the adjustment of boundary between the two countries, in

a note addressed to the Spanish minister of foreign affairs under date of

the 28th of January, 1805, assert that the boundaries of Louisiana, as

ceded to the United States by France, "are the river Perdido on the east

and the river Bravo on the west," and they add that "the facts and

principles which justify this conclusion are so satisfactory to our

Government as to convince it that the United States have not a better right

to the island of New Orleans under the cession referred to than they have

to the whole district of territory which is above described." Down to the

conclusion of the Florida treaty, in February, 1819, by which this

territory was ceded to Spain, the United States asserted and maintained

their territorial rights to this extent. In the month of June, 1818, during

Mr. Monroe's Administration, information having been received that a number

of foreign adventurers had landed at Galveston with the avowed purpose of

forming a settlement in that vicinity, a special messenger was dispatched

by the Government of the United States with instructions from the Secretary

of State to warn them to desist, should they be found there, "or any other

place north of the Rio Bravo, and within the territory claimed by the

United States." He was instructed, should they be found in the country

north of that river, to make known to them "the surprise with which the

President has seen possession thus taken, without authority from the United

States, of a place within their territorial limits, and upon which no

lawful settlement can be made without their sanction." He was instructed to

call upon them to "avow under what national authority they profess to act,"

and to give them due warning "that the place is within the United States,

who will suffer no permanent settlement to be made there under any

authority other than their own." As late as the 8th of July, 1842, the

Secretary of State of the United States, in a note addressed to our

minister in Mexico, maintains that by the Florida treaty of 1819 the

territory as far west as the Rio Grande was confirmed to Spain. In that

note he states that--

By the treaty of the 22d of February, 1819, between the United States and

Spain, the Sabine was adopted as the line of boundary between the two

powers. Up to that period no considerable colonization had been effected in

Texas; but the territory between the Sabine and the Rio Grande being

confirmed to Spain by the treaty, applications were made to that power for

grants of land, and such grants or permissions of settlement were in fact

made by the Spanish authorities in favor of citizens of the United States

proposing to emigrate to Texas in numerous families before the declaration

of independence by Mexico.

The Texas which was ceded to Spain by the Florida treaty of 1819 embraced

all the country now claimed by the State of Texas between the Nueces and

the Rio Grande. The Republic of Texas always claimed this river as her

western boundary, and in her treaty made with Santa Anna in May, 1836, he

recognized it as such. By the constitution which Texas adopted in March,

1836, senatorial and representative districts were organized extending west

of the Nueces. The Congress of Texas on the 19th of December, 1836, passed

"An act to define the boundaries of the Republic of Texas," in which they

declared the Rio Grande from its mouth to its source to be their boundary,

and by the said act they extended their "civil and political jurisdiction"

over the country up to that boundary. During a period of more than nine

years which intervened between the adoption of her constitution and her

annexation as one of the States of our Union Texas asserted and exercised

many acts of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the territory and

inhabitants west of the Nueces. She organized and defined the limits of

counties extending to the Rio Grande; she established courts of justice and

extended her judicial system over the territory; she established a

custom-house and collected duties, and also post-offices and post-roads, in

it; she established a land office and issued numerous grants for land

within its limits; a senator and a representative residing in it were

elected to the Congress of the Republic and served as such before the act

of annexation took place. In both the Congress and convention of Texas

which gave their assent to the terms of annexation to the United States

proposed by our Congress were representatives residing west of the Nueces,

who took part in the act of annexation itself. This was the Texas which by

the act of our Congress of the 29th of December, 1845, was admitted as one

of the States of our Union. That the Congress of the United States

understood the State of Texas which they admitted into the Union to extend

beyond the Nueces is apparent from the fact that on the 31st of December,

1845, only two days after the act of admission, they passed a law "to

establish a collection district in the State of Texas," by which they

created a port of delivery at Corpus Christi, situated west of the Nueces,

and being the same point at which the Texas custom-house under the laws of

that Republic had been located, and directed that a surveyor to collect the

revenue should be appointed for that port by the President, by and with the

advice and consent of the Senate. A surveyor was accordingly nominated, and

confirmed by the Senate, and has been ever since in the performance of his

duties. All these acts of the Republic of Texas and of our Congress

preceded the orders for the advance of our Army to the east bank of the Rio

Grande. Subsequently Congress passed an act "establishing certain post

routes" extending west of the Nueces. The country west of that river now

constitutes a part of one of the Congressional districts of Texas and is

represented in the House of Representatives. The Senators from that State

were chosen by a legislature in which the country west of that river was

represented. In view of all these facts it is difficult to conceive upon

what ground it can be maintained that in occupying the country west of the

Nueces with our Army, with a view solely to its security and defense, we

invaded the territory of Mexico. But it would have been still more

difficult to justify the Executive, whose duty it is to see that the laws

be faithfully executed, if in the face of all these proceedings, both of

the Congress of Texas and of the United States, he had assumed the

responsibility of yielding up the territory west of the Nueces to Mexico or

of refusing to protect and defend this territory and its inhabitants,

including Corpus Christi as well as the remainder of Texas, against the

threatened Mexican invasion.

But Mexico herself has never placed the war which she has waged upon the

ground that our Army occupied the intermediate territory between the Nueces

and the Rio Grande. Her refuted pretension that Texas was not in fact an

independent state, but a rebellious province, was obstinately persevered

in, and her avowed purpose in commencing a war with the United States was

to reconquer Texas and to restore Mexican authority over the whole

territory--not to the Nueces only, but to the Sabine. In view of the

proclaimed menaces of Mexico to this effect, I deemed it my duty, as a

measure of precaution and defense, to order our Army to occupy a position

on our frontier as a military post, from which our troops could best resist

and repel any attempted invasion which Mexico might make. Our Army had

occupied a position at Corpus Christi, west of the Nueces, as early as

August, 1845, without complaint from any quarter. Had the Nueces been

regarded as the true western boundary of Texas, that boundary had been

passed by our Army many months before it advanced to the eastern bank of

the Rio Grande. In my annual message of December last I informed Congress

that upon the invitation of both the Congress and convention of Texas I had

deemed it proper to order a strong squadron to the coasts of Mexico and to

concentrate an efficient military force on the western frontier of Texas to

protect and defend the inhabitants against the menaced invasion of Mexico.

In that message I informed Congress that the moment the terms of annexation

offered by the United States were accepted by Texas the latter became so

far a part of our own country as to make it our duty to afford such

protection and defense, and that for that purpose our squadron had been

ordered to the Gulf and our Army to take a "position between the Nueces and

the Del Norte" or Rio Grande and to "repel any invasion of the Texan

territory which might be attempted by the Mexican forces."

It was deemed proper to issue this order, because soon after the President

of Texas, in April, 1845, had issued his proclamation convening the

Congress of that Republic for the purpose of submitting to that body the

terms of annexation proposed by the United States the Government of Mexico

made serious threats of invading the Texan territory. These threats became

more imposing as it became more apparent in the progress of the question

that the people of Texas would decide in favor of accepting the terms of

annexation, and finally they had assumed such a formidable character as

induced both the Congress and convention of Texas to request that a

military force should be sent by the United States into her territory for

the purpose of protecting and defending her against the threatened

invasion. It would have been a violation of good faith toward the people of

Texas to have refused to afford the aid which they desired against a

threatened invasion to which they had been exposed by their free

determination to annex themselves to our Union in compliance with the

overture made to them by the joint resolution of our Congress. Accordingly,

a portion of the Army was ordered to advance into Texas. Corpus Christi was

the position selected by General Taylor. He encamped at that place in

August, 1845, and the Army remained in that position until the 11th of

March, 1846, when it moved westward, and on the 28th of that month reached

the east bank of the Rio Grande opposite to Matamoras. This movement was

made in pursuance of orders from the War Department, issued on the 13th of

January, 1846. Before these orders were issued the dispatch of our minister

in Mexico transmitting the decision of the council of government of Mexico

advising that he should not be received, and also the dispatch of our

consul residing in the City of Mexico, the former bearing date on the 17th

and the latter on the 18th of December, 1845, copies of both of which

accompanied my message to Congress of the 11th of May last, were received

at the Department of State. These communications rendered it highly

probable, if not absolutely certain, that our minister would not be

received by the Government of General Herrera. It was also well known that

but little hope could be entertained of a different result from General

Paredes in case the revolutionary movement which he was prosecuting should

prove successful, as was highly probable. The partisans of Paredes, as our

minister in the dispatch referred to states, breathed the fiercest

hostility against the United States, denounced the proposed negotiation as

treason, and openly called upon the troops and the people to put down the

Government of Herrera by force. The reconquest of Texas and war with the

United States were openly threatened. These were the circumstances existing

when it was deemed proper to order the Army under the command of General

Taylor to advance to the western frontier of Texas and occupy a position on

or near the Rio Grande.

The apprehensions of a contemplated Mexican invasion have been since fully

justified by the event. The determination of Mexico to rush into

hostilities with the United States was afterwards manifested from the whole

tenor of the note of the Mexican minister of foreign affairs to our

minister bearing date on the 12th of March, 1846. Paredes had then

revolutionized the Government, and his minister, after referring to the

resolution for the annexation of Texas which had been adopted by our

Congress in March, 1845, proceeds to declare that--

A fact such as this, or, to speak with greater exactness, so notable an act

of usurpation, created an imperious necessity that Mexico, for her own

honor, should repel it with proper firmness and dignity. The supreme

Government had beforehand declared that it would look upon such an act as a

casus belli, and as a consequence of this declaration negotiation was by

its very nature at an end, and war was the only recourse of the Mexican

Government.

It appears also that on the 4th of April following General Paredes, through

his minister of war, issued orders to the Mexican general in command on the

Texan frontier to "attack" our Army "by every means which war permits." To

this General Paredes had been pledged to the army and people of Mexico

during the military revolution which had brought him into power. On the

18th of April, 1846, General Paredes addressed a letter to the commander on

that frontier in which he stated to him: "At the present date I suppose

you, at the head of that valiant army, either fighting already or preparing

for the operations of a campaign;" and, "Supposing you already on the

theater of operations and with all the forces assembled, it is

indispensable that hostilities be commenced, yourself taking the initiative

against the enemy."

The movement of our Army to the Rio Grande was made by the commanding

general under positive orders to abstain from all aggressive acts toward

Mexico or Mexican citizens, and to regard the relations between the two

countries as peaceful unless Mexico should declare war or commit acts of

hostility indicative of a state of war, and these orders he faithfully

executed. Whilst occupying his position on the east bank of the Rio Grande,

within the limits of Texas, then recently admitted as one of the States of

our Union, the commanding general of the Mexican forces, who, in pursuance

of the orders of his Government, had collected a large army on the opposite

shore of the Rio Grande, crossed the river, invaded our territory, and

commenced hostilities by attacking our forces. Thus, after all the injuries

which we had received and borne from Mexico, and after she had insultingly

rejected a minister sent to her on a mission of peace, and whom she had

solemnly agreed to receive, she consummated her long course of outrage

against our country by commencing an offensive war and shedding the blood

of our citizens on our own soil.

The United States never attempted to acquire Texas by conquest. On the

contrary, at an early period after the people of Texas had achieved their

independence they sought to be annexed to the United States. At a general

election in September, 1836, they decided with great unanimity in favor of

"annexation," and in November following the Congress of the Republic

authorized the appointment of a minister to bear their request to this

Government. This Government, however, having remained neutral between Texas

and Mexico during the war between them, and considering it due to the honor

of our country and our fair fame among the nations of the earth that we

should not at this early period consent to annexation, nor until it should

be manifest to the whole world that the reconquest of Texas by Mexico was

impossible, refused to accede to the overtures made by Texas. On the 12th

of April, 1844, after more than seven years had elapsed since Texas had

established her independence, a treaty was concluded for the annexation of

that Republic to the United States, which was rejected by the Senate.

Finally, on the 1st of March, 1845, Congress passed a joint resolution for

annexing her to the United States upon certain preliminary conditions to

which her assent was required. The solemnities which characterized the

deliberations and conduct of the Government and people of Texas on the

deeply interesting questions presented by these resolutions are known to

the world. The Congress, the Executive, and the people of Texas, in a

convention elected for that purpose, accepted with great unanimity the

proposed terms of annexation, and thus consummated on her part the great

act of restoring to our Federal Union a vast territory which had been ceded

to Spain by the Florida treaty more than a quarter of a century before.

After the joint resolution for the annexation of Texas to the United States

had been passed by our Congress the Mexican minister at Washington

addressed a note to the Secretary of State, bearing date on the 6th of

March, 1845, protesting against it as "an act of aggression the most unjust

which can be found recorded in the annals of modern history, namely, that

of despoiling a friendly nation like Mexico of a considerable portion of

her territory," and protesting against the resolution of annexation as

being an act "whereby the Province of Texas, an integral portion of the

Mexican territory, is agreed and admitted into the American Union;" and he

announced that as a consequence his mission to the United States had

terminated, and demanded his passports, which were granted. It was upon the

absurd pretext, made by Mexico (herself indebted for her independence to a

successful revolution), that the Republic of Texas still continued to be,

notwithstanding all that had passed, a Province of Mexico that this step

was taken by the Mexican minister.

Every honorable effort has been used by me to avoid the war which followed,

but all have proved vain. All our attempts to preserve peace have been met

by insult and resistance on the part of Mexico. My efforts to this end

commenced in the note of the Secretary of State of the 10th of March, 1845,

in answer to that of the Mexican minister. Whilst declining to reopen a

discussion which had already been exhausted, and proving again what was

known to the whole world, that Texas had long since achieved her

independence, the Secretary of State expressed the regret of this

Government that Mexico should have taken offense at the resolution of

annexation passed by Congress, and gave assurance that our "most strenuous

efforts shall be devoted to the amicable adjustment of every cause of

complaint between the two Governments and to the cultivation of the kindest

and most friendly relations between the sister Republics." That I have

acted in the spirit of this assurance will appear from the events which

have since occurred. Notwithstanding Mexico had abruptly terminated all

diplomatic intercourse with the United States, and ought, therefore, to

have been the first to ask for its resumption, yet, waiving all ceremony, I

embraced the earliest favorable opportunity "to ascertain from the Mexican

Government whether they would receive an envoy from the United States

intrusted with full power to adjust all the questions in dispute between

the two Governments." In September, 1845, I believed the propitious moment

for such an overture had arrived. Texas, by the enthusiastic and almost

unanimous will of her people, had pronounced in favor of annexation. Mexico

herself had agreed to acknowledge the independence of Texas, subject to a

condition, it is true, which she had no right to impose and no power to

enforce. The last lingering hope of Mexico, if she still could have

retained any, that Texas would ever again become one of her Provinces, must

have been abandoned.

The consul of the United States at the City of Mexico was therefore

instructed by the Secretary of State on the 15th of September, 1845, to

make the inquiry of the Mexican Government. The inquiry was made, and on

the 15th of October, 1845, the minister of foreign affairs of the Mexican

Government, in a note addressed to our consul, gave a favorable response,

requesting at the same time that our naval force might be withdrawn from

Vera Cruz while negotiations should be pending. Upon the receipt of this

note our naval force was promptly withdrawn from Vera Cruz. A minister was

immediately appointed, and departed to Mexico. Everything bore a promising

aspect for a speedy and peaceful adjustment of all our difficulties. At the

date of my annual message to Congress in December last no doubt was

entertained but that he would be received by the Mexican Government, and

the hope was cherished that all cause of misunderstanding between the two

countries would be speedily removed. In the confident hope that such would

be the result of his mission, I informed Congress that I forbore at that

time to "recommend such ulterior measures of redress for the wrongs and

injuries we had so long borne as it would have been proper to make had no

such negotiation been instituted." To my surprise and regret the Mexican

Government, though solemnly pledged to do so, upon the arrival of our

minister in Mexico refused to receive and accredit him. When he reached

Vera Cruz, on the 30th of November, 1845, he found that the aspect of

affairs had undergone an unhappy change. The Government of General Herrera,

who was at that time President of the Republic, was tottering to its fall.

General Paredes, a military leader, had manifested his determination to

overthrow the Government of Herrera by a military revolution, and one of

the principal means which he employed to effect his purpose and render the

Government of Herrera odious to the army and people of Mexico was by loudly

condemning its determination to receive a minister of peace from the United

States, alleging that it was the intention of Herrera, by a treaty with the

United States, to dismember the territory of Mexico by ceding away the

department of Texas. The Government of Herrera is believed to have been

well disposed to a pacific adjustment of existing difficulties, but

probably alarmed for its own security, and in order to ward off the danger

of the revolution led by Paredes, violated its solemn agreement and refused

to receive or accredit our minister; and this although informed that he had

been invested with full power to adjust all questions in dispute between

the two Governments. Among the frivolous pretexts for this refusal, the

principal one was that our minister had not gone upon a special mission

confined to the question of Texas alone, leaving all the outrages upon our

flag and our citizens unredressed. The Mexican Government well knew that

both our national honor and the protection due to our citizens imperatively

required that the two questions of boundary and indemnity should be treated

of together, as naturally and inseparably blended, and they ought to have

seen that this course was best calculated to enable the United States to

extend to them the most liberal justice. On the 30th of December, 1845,

General Herrera resigned the Presidency and yielded up the Government to

General Paredes without a struggle. Thus a revolution was accomplished

solely by the army commanded by Paredes, and the supreme power in Mexico

passed into the hands of a military usurper who was known to be bitterly

hostile to the United States.

Although the prospect of a pacific adjustment with the new Government was

unpromising from the known hostility of its head to the United States, yet,

determined that nothing should be left undone on our part to restore

friendly relations between the two countries, our minister was instructed

to present his credentials to the new Government and ask to be accredited

by it in the diplomatic character in which he had been commissioned. These

instructions he executed by his note of the 1st of March, 1846, addressed

to the Mexican minister of foreign affairs, but his request was insultingly

refused by that minister in his answer of the 12th of the same month. No

alternative remained for our minister but to demand his passports and

return to the United States.

Thus was the extraordinary spectacle presented to the civilized world of a

Government, in violation of its own express agreement, having twice

rejected a minister of peace invested with full powers to adjust all the

existing differences between the two countries in a manner just and

honorable to both. I am not aware that modern history presents a parallel

case in which in time of peace one nation has refused even to hear

propositions from another for terminating existing difficulties between

them. Scarcely a hope of adjusting our difficulties, even at a remote day,

or of preserving peace with Mexico, could be cherished while Paredes

remained at the head of the Government. He had acquired the supreme power

by a military revolution and upon the most solemn pledges to wage war

against the United States and to reconquer Texas, which he claimed as a

revolted province of Mexico. He had denounced as guilty of treason all

those Mexicans who considered Texas as no longer constituting a part of the

territory of Mexico and who were friendly to the cause of peace. The

duration of the war which he waged against the United States was

indefinite, because the end which he proposed of the reconquest of Texas

was hopeless. Besides, there was good reason to believe from all his

conduct that it was his intention to convert the Republic of Mexico into a

monarchy and to call a foreign European prince to the throne. Preparatory

to this end, he had during his short rule destroyed the liberty of the

press, tolerating that portion of it only which openly advocated the

establishment of a monarchy. The better to secure the success of his

ultimate designs, he had by an arbitrary decree convoked a Congress, not to

be elected by the free voice of the people, but to be chosen in a manner to

make them subservient to his will and to give him absolute control over

their deliberations.

Under all these circumstances it was believed that any revolution in Mexico

founded upon opposition to the ambitious projects of Paredes would tend to

promote the cause of peace as well as prevent any attempted European

interference in the affairs of the North American continent, both objects

of deep interest to the United States. Any such foreign interference, if

attempted, must have been resisted by the United States. My views upon that

subject were fully communicated to Congress in my last annual message. In

any event, it was certain that no change whatever in the Government of

Mexico which would deprive Paredes of power could be for the worse so far

as the United States were concerned, while it was highly probable that any

change must be for the better. This was the state of affairs existing when

Congress, on the 13th of May last, recognized the existence of the war

which had been commenced by the Government of Paredes; and it became an

object of much importance, with a view to a speedy settlement of our

difficulties and the restoration of an honorable peace, that Paredes should

not retain power in Mexico.

Before that time there were symptoms of a revolution in Mexico, favored, as

it was understood to be, by the more liberal party, and especially by those

who were opposed to foreign interference and to the monarchical form of

government. Santa Anna was then in exile in Havana, having been expelled

from power and banished from his country by a revolution which occurred in

December, 1844; but it was known that he had still a considerable party in

his favor in Mexico. It was also equally well known that no vigilance which

could be exerted by our squadron would in all probability have prevented

him from effecting a landing somewhere on the extensive Gulf coast of

Mexico if he desired to return to his country. He had openly professed an

entire change of policy, had expressed his regret that he had subverted the

federal constitution of 1824, and avowed that he was now in favor of its

restoration. He had publicly declared his hostility, in strongest terms, to

the establishment of a monarchy and to European interference in the affairs

of his country. Information to this effect had been received, from sources

believed to be reliable, at the date of the recognition of the existence of

the war by Congress, and was afterwards fully confirmed by the receipt of

the dispatch of our consul in the City of Mexico, with the accompanying

documents, which are herewith transmitted. Besides, it was reasonable to

suppose that he must see the ruinous consequences to Mexico of a war with

the United States, and that it would be his interest to favor peace.

It was under these circumstances and upon these considerations that it was

deemed expedient not to obstruct his return to Mexico should he attempt to

do so. Our object was the restoration of peace, and, with that view, no

reason was perceived why we should take part with Paredes and aid him by

means of our blockade in preventing the return of his rival to Mexico. On

the contrary, it was believed that the intestine divisions which ordinary

sagacity could not but anticipate as the fruit of Santa Anna's return to

Mexico, and his contest with Paredes, might strongly tend to produce a

disposition with both parties to restore and preserve peace with the United

States. Paredes was a soldier by profession and a monarchist in principle.

He had but recently before been successful in a military revolution, by

which he had obtained power. He was the sworn enemy of the United States,

with which he had involved his country in the existing war. Santa Anna had

been expelled from power by the army, was known to be in open hostility to

Paredes, and publicly pledged against foreign intervention and the

restoration of monarchy in Mexico. In view of these facts and circumstances

it was that when orders were issued to the commander of our naval forces in

the Gulf, on the 13th day of May last, the same day on which the existence

of the war was recognized by Congress, to place the coasts of Mexico under

blockade, he was directed not to obstruct the passage of Santa Anna to

Mexico should he attempt to return.

A revolution took place in Mexico in the early part of August following, by

which the power of Paredes was overthrown, and he has since been banished

from the country, and is now in exile. Shortly afterwards Santa Anna

returned. It remains to be seen whether his return may not yet prove to be

favorable to a pacific adjustment of the existing difficulties, it being

manifestly his interest not to persevere in the prosecution of a war

commenced by Paredes to accomplish a purpose so absurd as the reconquest of

Texas to the Sabine. Had Paredes remained in power, it is morally certain

that any pacific adjustment would have been hopeless.

Upon the commencement of hostilities by Mexico against the United States

the indignant spirit of the nation was at once aroused. Congress promptly

responded to the expectations of the country, and by the act of the 13th of

May last recognized the fact that war existed, by the act of Mexico,

between the United States and that Republic, and granted the means

necessary for its vigorous prosecution. Being involved in a war thus

commenced by Mexico, and for the justice of which on our part we may

confidently appeal to the whole world, I resolved to prosecute it with the

utmost vigor. Accordingly the ports of Mexico on the Gulf and on the

Pacific have been placed under blockade and her territory invaded at

several important points. The reports from the Departments of War and of

the Navy will inform you more in detail of the measures adopted in the

emergency in which our country was placed and of the gratifying results

which have been accomplished.

The various columns of the Army have performed their duty under great

disadvantages with the most distinguished skill and courage. The victories

of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma and of Monterey, won against greatly

superior numbers and against most decided advantages in other respects on

the part of the enemy, were brilliant in their execution, and entitle our

brave officers and soldiers to the grateful thanks of their country. The

nation deplores the loss of the brave officers and men who have gallantly

fallen while vindicating and defending their country's rights and honor.

It is a subject of pride and satisfaction that our volunteer citizen

soldiers, who so promptly responded to their country's call, with an

experience of the discipline of a camp of only a few weeks, have borne

their part in the hard-fought battle of Monterey with a constancy and

courage equal to that of veteran troops and worthy of the highest

admiration. The privations of long marches through the enemy's country and

through a wilderness have been borne without a murmur. By rapid movements

the Province of New Mexico, with Santa Fe, its capital, has been captured

without bloodshed. The Navy has cooperated with the Army and rendered

important services; if not so brilliant, it is because the enemy had no

force to meet them on their own element and because of the defenses which

nature has interposed in the difficulties of the navigation on the Mexican

coast. Our squadron in the Pacific, with the cooperation of a gallant

officer of the Army and a small force hastily collected in that distant

country, has acquired bloodless possession of the Californias, and the

American flag has been raised at every important point in that Province.

I congratulate you on the success which has thus attended our military and

naval operations. In less than seven months after Mexico commenced

hostilities, at a time selected by herself, we have taken possession of

many of her principal ports, driven back and pursued her invading army, and

acquired military possession of the Mexican Provinces of New Mexico, New

Leon, Coahuila, Tamaulipas, and the Californias, a territory larger in

extent than that embraced in the original thirteen States of the Union,

inhabited by a considerable population, and much of it more than 1,000

miles from the points at which we had to collect our forces and commence

our movements. By the blockade the import and export trade of the enemy has

been cut off. Well may the American people be proud of the energy and

gallantry of our regular and volunteer officers and soldiers. The events of

these few months afford a gratifying proof that our country can under any

emergency confidently rely for the maintenance of her honor and the defense

of her rights on an effective force, ready at all times voluntarily to

relinquish the comforts of home for the perils and privations of the camp.

And though such a force may be for the time expensive, it is in the end

economical, as the ability to command it removes the necessity of employing

a large standing army in time of peace, and proves that our people love

their institutions and are ever ready to defend and protect them.

While the war was in a course of vigorous and successful prosecution, being

still anxious to arrest its evils, and considering that after the brilliant

victories of our arms on the 8th and 9th of May last the national honor

could not be compromitted by it, another overture was made to Mexico, by my

direction, on the 27th of July last to terminate hostilities by a peace

just and honorable to both countries. On the 31st of August following the

Mexican Government declined to accept this friendly overture, but referred

it to the decision of a Mexican Congress to be assembled in the early part

of the present month. I communicate to you herewith a copy of the letter of

the Secretary of State proposing to reopen negotiations, of the answer of

the Mexican Government, and of the reply thereto of the Secretary of

State,

The war will continue to be prosecuted with vigor as the best means of

securing peace. It is hoped that the decision of the Mexican Congress, to

which our last overture has been referred, may result in a speedy and

honorable peace. With our experience, however, of the unreasonable course

of the Mexican authorities, it is the part of wisdom not to relax in the

energy of our military operations until the result is made known. In this

view it is deemed important to hold military possession of all the

Provinces which have been taken until a definitive treaty of peace shall

have been concluded and ratified by the two countries.

The war has not been waged with a view to conquest, but, having been

commenced by Mexico, it has been carried into the enemy's country and will

be vigorously prosecuted there with a view to obtain an honorable peace,

and thereby secure ample indemnity for the expenses of the war, as well as

to our much-injured citizens, who hold large pecuniary demands against

Mexico.

By the laws of nations a conquered country is subject to be governed by the

conqueror during his military possession and until there is either a treaty

of peace or he shall voluntarily withdraw from it. The old civil government

being necessarily superseded, it is the right and duty of the conqueror to

secure his conquest and to provide for the maintenance of civil order and

the rights of the inhabitants. This right has been exercised and this duty

performed by our military and naval commanders by the establishment of

temporary governments in some of the conquered Provinces of Mexico,

assimilating them as far as practicable to the free institutions of our own

country. In the Provinces of New Mexico and of the Californias little, if

any, further resistance is apprehended from the inhabitants to the

temporary governments which have thus, from the necessity of the case and

according to the laws of war, been established. It may be proper to provide

for the security of these important conquests by making an adequate

appropriation for the purpose of erecting fortifications and defraying the

expenses necessarily incident to the maintenance of our possession and

authority over them.

Near the close of your last session, for reasons communicated to Congress,

I deemed it important as a measure for securing a speedy peace with Mexico,

that a sum of money should be appropriated and placed in the power of the

Executive, similar to that which had been made upon two former occasions

during the Administration of President Jefferson.

On the 26th of February, 1803, an appropriation of $2,000.000 was made and

placed at the disposal of the President. Its object is well known. It was

at that time in contemplation to acquire Louisiana from France, and it was

intended to be applied as a part of the consideration which might be paid

for that territory. On the 13th of February, 1806, the same sum was in like

manner appropriated, with a view to the purchase of the Floridas from

Spain. These appropriations were made to facilitate negotiations and as a

means to enable the President to accomplish the important objects in view.

Though it did not become necessary for the President to use these

appropriations, yet a state of things might have arisen in which it would

have been highly important for him to do so, and the wisdom of making them

can not be doubted. It is believed that the measure recommended at your

last session met with the approbation of decided majorities in both Houses

of Congress. Indeed, in different forms, a bill making an appropriation of

$2,000,000 passed each House, and it is much to be regretted that it did

not become a law. The reasons which induced me to recommend the measure at

that time still exist, and I again submit the subject for your

consideration and suggest the importance of early action upon it. Should

the appropriation be made and be not needed, it will remain in the

Treasury; should it be deemed proper to apply it in whole or in part, it

will be accounted for as other public expenditures.

Immediately after Congress had recognized the existence of the war with

Mexico my attention was directed to the danger that privateers might be

fitted out in the ports of Cuba and Porto Rico to prey upon the commerce of

the United States, and I invited the special attention of the Spanish

Government to the fourteenth article of our treaty with that power of the

27th of October, 1795, under which the citizens and subjects of either

nation who shall take commissions or letters of marque to act as privateers

against the other "shall be punished as pirates."

It affords me pleasure to inform you that I have received assurances from

the Spanish Government that this article of the treaty shall be faithfully

observed on its part. Orders for this purpose were immediately transmitted

from that Government to the authorities of Cuba and Porto Rico to exert

their utmost vigilance in preventing any attempts to fit out privateers in

those islands against the United States. From the good faith of Spain I am

fully satisfied that this treaty will be executed in its spirit as well as

its letter, whilst the United States will on their part faithfully perform

all the obligations which it imposes on them.

Information has been recently received at the Department of State that the

Mexican Government has sent to Havana blank commissions to privateers and

blank certificates of naturalization signed by General Salas, the present

head of the Mexican Government. There is also reason to apprehend that

similar documents have been transmitted to other parts of the world. Copies

of these papers, in translation, are herewith transmitted.

As the preliminaries required by the practice of civilized nations for

commissioning privateers and regulating their conduct appear not to have

been observed, and as these commissions are in blank, to be filled up with

the names of citizens and subjects of all nations who may be willing to

purchase them, the whole proceeding can only be construed as an invitation

to all the freebooters upon earth who are willing to pay for the privilege

to cruise against American commerce. It will be for our courts of justice

to decide whether under such circumstances these Mexican letters of marque

and reprisal shall protect those who accept them, and commit robberies upon

the high seas under their authority, from the pains and penalties of

piracy.

If the certificates of naturalization thus granted be intended by Mexico to

shield Spanish subjects from the guilt and punishment of pirates under our

treaty with Spain, they will certainly prove unavailing. Such a subterfuge

would be but a weak device to defeat the provisions of a solemn treaty.

I recommend that Congress should immediately provide by law for the trial

and punishment as pirates of Spanish subjects who, escaping the vigilance

of their Government, shall be found guilty of privateering against the

United States. I do not apprehend serious danger from these privateers. Our

Navy will be constantly on the alert to protect our commerce. Besides, in

case prizes should be made of American vessels, the utmost vigilance will

be exerted by our blockading squadron to prevent the captors from taking

them into Mexican ports, and it is not apprehended that any nation will

violate its neutrality by suffering such prizes to be condemned and sold

within its jurisdiction.

I recommend that Congress should immediately provide by law for granting

letters of marque and reprisal against vessels under the Mexican flag. It

is true that there are but few, if any, commercial vessels of Mexico upon

the high seas, and it is therefore not probable that many American

privateers would be fitted out in case a law should pass authorizing this

mode of warfare. It is, notwithstanding, certain that such privateers may

render good service to the commercial interests of the country by

recapturing our merchant ships should any be taken by armed vessels under

the Mexican flag, as well as by capturing these vessels themselves. Every

means within our power should be rendered available for the protection of

our commerce.

The annual report of the Secretary of the Treasury will exhibit a detailed

statement of the condition of the finances. The imports for the fiscal year

ending on the 30th of June last were of the value of $121,691,797, of which

the amount exported was $11,346,623, leaving the amount retained in the

country for domestic consumption $110,345,174. The value of the exports for

the same period was $113,488,516, of which $102,141,893 consisted of

domestic productions and $11,346,623 of foreign articles.

The receipts into the Treasury for the same year were $29,499,247.06, of

which there was derived from customs $26,712,667.87, from the sales of

public lands $2,694,452.48, and from incidental and miscellaneous sources

$92,126.71. The expenditures for the same period were $28,031,114.20, and

the balance in the Treasury on the 1st day of July last was $9,126,439.

08.

The amount of the public debt, including Treasury notes, on the 1st of the

present month was $24,256,494.60, of which the sum of $17,788,799.62 was

outstanding on the 4th of March, 1845, leaving the amount incurred since

that time $6,467,694.98.

In order to prosecute the war with Mexico with vigor and energy, as the

best means of bringing it to a speedy and honorable termination, a further

loan will be necessary to meet the expenditures for the present and the

next fiscal year. If the war should be continued until the 30th of June,

1848, being the end of the next fiscal year, it is estimated that an

additional loan of $23,000,000 will be required. This estimate is made upon

the assumption that it will be necessary to retain constantly in the

Treasury $4,000,000 to guard against contingencies. If such surplus were

not required to be retained, then a loan of $19,000,000 would be

sufficient. If, however, Congress should at the present session impose a

revenue duty on the principal articles now embraced in the free list, it is

estimated that an additional annual revenue of about two millions and a

half, amounting, it is estimated, on the 30th of June, 1848, to $4,000,000,

would be derived from that source, and the loan required would be reduced

by that amount. It is estimated also that should Congress graduate and

reduce the price of such of the public lands as have been long in the

market the additional revenue derived from that source would be annually,

for several years to come, between half a million and a million dollars;

and the loan required may be reduced by that amount also. Should these

measures be adopted, the loan required would not probably exceed

$18,000,000 or $19,000,000, leaving in the Treasury a constant surplus of

$4,000,000. The loan proposed, it is estimated, will be sufficient to cover

the necessary expenditures both for the war and for all other purposes up

to the 30th of June, 1848, and an amount of this loan not exceeding

one-half may be required during the present fiscal year, and the greater

part of the remainder during the first half of the fiscal year succeeding.

In order that timely notice may be given and proper measures taken to

effect the loan, or such portion of it as may be required, it is important

that the authority of Congress to make it be given at an early period of

your present session. It is suggested that the loan should be contracted

for a period of twenty years, with authority to purchase the stock and pay

it off at an earlier period at its market value out of any surplus which

may at any time be in the Treasury applicable to that purpose. After the

establishment of peace with Mexico, it is supposed that a considerable

surplus will exist, and that the debt may be extinguished in a much shorter

period than that for which it may be contracted. The period of twenty

years, as that for which the proposed loan may be contracted, in preference

to a shorter period, is suggested, because all experience, both at home and

abroad, has shown that loans are effected upon much better terms upon long

time than when they are reimbursable at short dates.

Necessary as this measure is to sustain the honor and the interests of the

country engaged in a foreign war, it is not doubted but that Congress will

promptly authorize it.

The balance in the Treasury on the 1st July last exceeded $9,000,000,

notwithstanding considerable expenditures had been made for the war during

the months of May and June preceding. But for the war the whole public debt

could and would have been extinguished within a short period; and it was a

part of my settled policy to do so, and thus relieve the people from its

burden and place the Government in a position which would enable it to

reduce the public expenditures to that economical standard which is most

consistent with the general welfare and the pure and wholesome progress of

our institutions.

Among our just causes of complaint against Mexico arising out of her

refusal to treat for peace, as well before as since the war so unjustly

commenced on her part, are the extraordinary expenditures in which we have

been involved. Justice to our own people will make it proper that Mexico

should be held responsible for these expenditures.

Economy in the public expenditures is at all times a high duty which all

public functionaries of the Government owe to the people. This duty becomes

the more imperative in a period of war, when large and extraordinary

expenditures become unavoidable. During the existence of the war with

Mexico all our resources should be husbanded, and no appropriations made

except such as are absolutely necessary for its vigorous prosecution and

the due administration of the Government. Objects of appropriation which in

peace may be deemed useful or proper, but which are not indispensable for

the public service, may when the country is engaged in a foreign war be

well postponed to a future period. By the observance of this policy at your

present session large amounts may be saved to the Treasury and be applied

to objects of pressing and urgent necessity, and thus the creation of a

corresponding amount of public debt may be avoided.

It is not meant to recommend that the ordinary and necessary appropriations

for the support of Government should be withheld; but it is well known that

at every session of Congress appropriations are proposed for numerous

objects which may or may not be made without materially affecting the

public interests, and these it is recommended should not be granted.

The act passed at your last session "reducing the duties on imports" not

having gone into operation until the 1st of the present month, there has

not been time for its practical effect upon the revenue and the business of

the country to be developed. It is not doubted, however, that the just

policy which it adopts will add largely to our foreign trade and promote

the general prosperity. Although it can not be certainly foreseen what

amount of revenue it will yield, it is estimated that it will exceed that

produced by the act of 1842, which it superseded. The leading principles

established by it are to levy the taxes with a view to raise revenue and to

impose them upon the articles imported according to their actual value.

The act of 1842, by the excessive rates of duty which it imposed on many

articles, either totally excluded them from importation or greatly reduced

the amount imported, and thus diminished instead of producing revenue. By

it the taxes were imposed not for the legitimate purpose of raising

revenue, but to afford advantages to favored classes at the expense of a

large majority of their fellow-citizens. Those employed in agriculture,

mechanical pursuits, commerce, and navigation were compelled to contribute

from their substance to swell the profits and overgrown wealth of the

comparatively few who had invested their capital in manufactures. The taxes

were not levied in proportion to the value of the articles upon which they

were imposed, but, widely departing from this just rule, the lighter taxes

were in many cases levied upon articles of luxury and high price and the

heavier taxes on those of necessity and low price, consumed by the great

mass of the people. It was a system the inevitable effect of which was to

relieve favored classes and the wealthy few from contributing their just

proportion for the support of Government, and to lay the burden on the

labor of the many engaged in other pursuits than manufactures.

A system so unequal and unjust has been superseded by the existing law,

which imposes duties not for the benefit or injury of classes or pursuits,

but distributes and, as far as practicable, equalizes the public burdens

among all classes and occupations. The favored classes who under the

unequal and unjust system which has been repealed have heretofore realized

large profits, and many of them amassed large fortunes at the expense of

the many who have been made tributary to them, will have no reason to

complain if they shall be required to bear their just proportion of the

taxes necessary for the support of Government. So far from it, it will be

perceived by an examination of the existing law that discriminations in the

rates of duty imposed within the revenue principle have been retained in

their favor. The incidental aid against foreign competition which they

still enjoy gives them an advantage which no other pursuits possess, but of

this none others will complain, because the duties levied are necessary for

revenue. These revenue duties, including freights and charges, which the

importer must pay before he can come in competition with the home

manufacturer in our markets, amount on nearly all our leading branches of

manufacture to more than one-third of the value of the imported article,

and in some cases to almost one-half its value. With such advantages it is

not doubted that our domestic manufacturers will continue to prosper,

realizing in well-conducted establishments even greater profits than can be

derived from any other regular business. Indeed, so far from requiring the

protection of even incidental revenue duties, our manufacturers in several

leading branches are extending their business, giving evidence of great

ingenuity and skill and of their ability to compete, with increased

prospect of success, for the open market of the world. Domestic

manufactures to the value of several millions of dollars, which can not

find a market at home, are annually exported to foreign countries. With

such rates of duty as those established by the existing law the system will

probably be permanent, and capitalists who are made or shall hereafter make

their investments in manufactures will know upon what to rely. The country

will be satisfied with these rates, because the advantages which the

manufacturers still enjoy result necessarily from the collection of revenue

for the support of Government. High protective duties, from their unjust

operation upon the masses of the people, can not fail to give rise to

extensive dissatisfaction and complaint and to constant efforts to change

or repeal them, rendering all investments in manufactures uncertain and

precarious. Lower and more permanent rates of duty, at the same time that

they will yield to the manufacturer fair and remunerating profits, will

secure him against the danger of frequent changes in the system, which can

not fail to ruinously affect his interests.

Simultaneously with the relaxation of the restrictive policy by the United

States, Great Britain, from whose example we derived the system, has

relaxed hers. She has modified her corn laws and reduced many other duties

to moderate revenue rates. After ages of experience the statesmen of that

country have been constrained by a stern necessity and by a public opinion

having its deep foundation in the sufferings and wants of impoverished

millions to abandon a system the effect of which was to build up immense

fortunes in the hands of the few and to reduce the laboring millions to

pauperism and misery. Nearly in the same ratio that labor was depressed

capital was increased and concentrated by the British protective policy.

The evils of the system in Great Britain were at length rendered

intolerable, and it has been abandoned, but not without a severe struggle

on the part of the protected and favored classes to retain the unjust

advantages which they have so long enjoyed. It was to be expected that a

similar struggle would be made by the same classes in the United States

whenever an attempt was made to modify or abolish the same unjust system

here. The protective policy had been in operation in the United States for

a much shorter period, and its pernicious effects were not, therefore, so

clearly perceived and felt. Enough, however, was known of these effects to

induce its repeal.

It would be strange if in the face of the example of Great Britain, our

principal foreign customer, and of the evils of a system rendered manifest

in that country by long and painful experience, and in the face of the

immense advantages which under a more liberal commercial policy we are

already deriving, and must continue to derive, by supplying her starving

population with food, the United States should restore a policy which she

has been compelled to abandon, and thus diminish her ability to purchase

from us the food and other articles which she so much needs and we so much

desire to sell. By the simultaneous abandonment of the protective policy by

Great Britain and the United States new and important markets have already

been opened for our agricultural and other products, commerce and

navigation have received a new impulse, labor and trade have been released

from the artificial trammels which have so long fettered them, and to a

great extent reciprocity in the exchange of commodities has been introduced

at the same time by both countries, and greatly for the benefit of both.

Great Britain has been forced by the pressure of circumstances at home to

abandon a policy which has been upheld for ages, and to open her markets

for our immense surplus of breadstuffs, and it is confidently believed that

other powers of Europe will ultimately see the wisdom, if they be not

compelled by the pauperism and sufferings of their crowded population, to

pursue a similar policy.

Our farmers are more deeply interested in maintaining the just and liberal

policy of the existing law than any other class of our citizens. They

constitute a large majority of our population, and it is well known that

when they prosper all other pursuits prosper also. They have heretofore not

only received none of the bounties or favors of Government, but by the

unequal operations of the protective policy have been made by the burdens

of taxation which it imposed to contribute to the bounties which have

enriched others.

When a foreign as well as a home market is opened to them, they must

receive, as they are now receiving, increased prices for their products.

They will find a readier sale, and at better prices, for their wheat,

flour, rice, Indian corn, beef, pork, lard, butter, cheese, and other

articles which they produce. The home market alone is inadequate to enable

them to dispose of the immense surplus of food and other articles which

they are capable of producing, even at the most reduced prices, for the

manifest reason that they can not be consumed in the country. The United

States can from their immense surplus supply not only the home demand, but

the deficiencies of food required by the whole world.

That the reduced production of some of the chief articles of food in Great

Britain and other parts of Europe may have contributed to increase the

demand for our breadstuffs and provisions is not doubted, but that the

great and efficient cause of this increased demand and of increased prices

consists in the removal of artificial restrictions heretofore imposed is

deemed to be equally certain. That our exports of food, already increased

and increasing beyond former example under the more liberal policy which

has been adopted, will be still vastly enlarged unless they be checked or

prevented by a restoration of the protective policy can not be doubted.

That our commercial and navigating interests will be enlarged in a

corresponding ratio with the increase of our trade is equally certain,

while our manufacturing interests will still be the favored interests of

the country and receive the incidental protection afforded them by revenue

duties; and more than this they can not justly demand.

In my annual message of December last a tariff of revenue duties based upon

the principles of the existing law was recommended, and I have seen no

reason to change the opinions then expressed. In view of the probable

beneficial effects of that law, I recommend that the policy established by

it be maintained. It has but just commenced to operate, and to abandon or

modify it without giving it a fair trial would be inexpedient and unwise.

Should defects in any of its details be ascertained by actual experience to

exist, these may be hereafter corrected; but until such defects shall

become manifest the act should be fairly tested.

It is submitted for your consideration whether it may not be proper, as a

war measure, to impose revenue duties on some of the articles now embraced

in the free list. Should it be deemed proper to impose such duties with a

view to raise revenue to meet the expenses of the war with Mexico or to

avoid to that extent the creation of a public debt, they may be repealed

when the emergency which gave rise to them shall cease to exist, and

constitute no part of the permanent policy of the country.

The act of the 6th of August last, "to provide for the better organization

of the Treasury and for the collection, safe-keeping, transfer, and

disbursement of the public revenue," has been carried into execution as

rapidly as the delay necessarily arising out of the appointment of new

officers, taking and approving their bonds, and preparing and securing

proper places for the safe-keeping of the public money would permit. It is

not proposed to depart in any respect from the principles or policy on

which this great measure is rounded. There are, however, defects in the

details of the measure, developed by its practical operation, which are

fully set forth in the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, to which

the attention of Congress is invited. These defects would impair to some

extent the successful operation of the law at all times, but are especially

embarrassing when the country is engaged in a war, when the expenditures

are greatly increased, when loans are to be effected and the disbursements

are to be made at points many hundred miles distant, in some cases, from

any depository, and a large portion of them in a foreign country. The

modifications suggested in the report of the Secretary of the Treasury are

recommended to your favorable consideration.

In connection with this subject I invite your attention to the importance

of establishing a branch of the Mint of the United States at New York.

Two-thirds of the revenue derived from customs being collected at that

point, the demand for specie to pay the duties will be large, and a branch

mint where foreign coin and bullion could be immediately converted into

American coin would greatly facilitate the transaction of the public

business, enlarge the circulation of gold and silver, and be at the same

time a safe depository of the public money.

The importance of graduating and reducing the price of such of the public

lands as have been long offered in the market at the minimum rate

authorized by existing laws, and remain unsold, induces me again to

recommend the subject to your favorable consideration. Many millions of

acres of these lands have been offered in the market for more than thirty

years and larger quantities for more than ten or twenty years, and, being

of an inferior quality, they must remain unsalable for an indefinite period

unless the price at which they may be purchased shall be reduced. To place

a price upon them above their real value is not only to prevent their sale,

and thereby deprive the Treasury of any income from that source, but is

unjust to the States in which they lie, because it retards their growth and

increase of population, and because they have no power to levy a tax upon

them as upon other lands within their limits, held by other proprietors

than the United States, for the support of their local governments.

The beneficial effects of the graduation principle have been realized by

some of the States owning the lands within their limits in which it has

been adopted. They have been demonstrated also by the United States acting

as the trustee of the Chickasaw tribe of Indians in the sale of their lands

lying within the States of Mississippi and Alabama. The Chickasaw lands,

which would not command in the market the minimum price established by the

laws of the United States for the sale of their lands, were, in pursuance

of the treaty of 1834 with that tribe, subsequently offered for sale at

graduated and reduced rates for limited periods. The result was that large

quantities of these lands were purchased which would otherwise have

remained unsold. The lands were disposed of at their real value, and many

persons of limited means were enabled to purchase small tracts, upon which

they have settled with their families. That similar results would be

produced by the adoption of the graduation policy by the United States in

all the States in which they are the owners of large bodies of lands which

have been long in the market can not be doubted. It can not be a sound

policy to withhold large quantities of the public lands from the use and

occupation of our citizens by fixing upon them prices which experience has

shown they will not command. On the contrary, it is a wise policy to afford

facilities to our citizens to become the owners at low and moderate rates

of freeholds of their own instead of being the tenants and dependents of

others. If it be apprehended that these lands if reduced in price would be

secured in large quantities by speculators or capitalists, the sales may be

restricted in limited quantities to actual settlers or persons purchasing

for purposes of cultivation.

In my last annual message I submitted for the consideration of Congress the

present system of managing the mineral lands of the United States, and

recommended that they should be brought into market and sold upon such

terms and under such restrictions as Congress might prescribe. By the act

of the 11th of July last "the reserved lead mines and contiguous lands in

the States of Illinois and Arkansas and Territories of Wisconsin and Iowa"

were authorized to be sold. The act is confined in its operation to "lead

mines and contiguous lands." A large portion of the public lands,

containing copper and other ores, is represented to be very valuable, and I

recommend that provision be made authorizing the sale of these lands upon

such terms and conditions as from their supposed value may in the judgment

of Congress be deemed advisable, having due regard to the interests of such

of our citizens as may be located upon them.

It will be important during your present session to establish a Territorial

government and to extend the jurisdiction and laws of the United States

over the Territory of Oregon. Our laws regulating trade and intercourse

with the Indian tribes east of the Rocky Mountains should be extended to

the Pacific Ocean; and for the purpose of executing them and preserving

friendly relations with the Indian tribes within our limits, an additional

number of Indian agencies will be required, and should be authorized by

law. The establishment of custom-houses and of post-offices and post-roads

and provision for the transportation of the mail on such routes as the

public convenience will suggest require legislative authority. It will be

proper also to establish a surveyor-general's office in that Territory and

to make the necessary provision for surveying the public lands and bringing

them into market. As our citizens who now reside in that distant region

have been subjected to many hardships, privations, and sacrifices in their

emigration, and by their improvements have enhanced the value of the public

lands in the neighborhood of their settlements, it is recommended that

liberal grants be made to them of such portions of these lands as they may

occupy, and that similar grants or rights of preemption be made to all who

may emigrate thither within a limited period, prescribed by law.

The report of the Secretary of War contains detailed information relative

to the several branches of the public service connected with that

Department. The operations of the Army have been of a satisfactory and

highly gratifying character. I recommend to your early and favorable

consideration the measures proposed by the Secretary of War for speedily

filling up the rank and file of the Regular Army, for its greater

efficiency in the field, and for raising an additional force to serve

during the war with Mexico.

Embarrassment is likely to arise for want of legal provision authorizing

compensation to be made to the agents employed in the several States and

Territories to pay the Revolutionary and other pensioners the amounts

allowed them by law. Your attention is invited to the recommendations of

the Secretary of War on this subject. These agents incur heavy

responsibilities and perform important duties, and no reason exists why

they should not be placed on the same footing as to compensation with other

disbursing officers.

Our relations with the various Indian tribes continue to be of a pacific

character. The unhappy dissensions which have existed among the Cherokees

for many years past have been healed. Since my last annual message

important treaties have been negotiated with some of the tribes, by which

the Indian title to large tracts of valuable land within the limits of the

States and Territories has been extinguished and arrangements made for

removing them to the country west of the Mississippi. Between 3,000 and

4,000 of different tribes have been removed to the country provided for

them by treaty stipulations, and arrangements have been made for others to

follow.

In our intercourse with the several tribes particular attention has been

given to the important subject of education. The number of schools

established among them has been increased, and additional means provided

not only for teaching them the rudiments of education, but of instructing

them in agriculture and the mechanic arts.

I refer you to the report of the Secretary of the Navy for a satisfactory

view of the operations of the Department under his charge during the past

year. It is gratifying to perceive that while the war with Mexico has

rendered it necessary to employ an unusual number of our armed vessels on

her coasts, the protection due to our commerce in other quarters of the

world has not proved insufficient. No means will be spared to give

efficiency to the naval service in the prosecution of the war; and I am

happy to know that the officers and men anxiously desire to devote

themselves to the service of their country in any enterprise, however

difficult of execution.

I recommend to your favorable consideration the proposition to add to each

of our foreign squadrons an efficient sea steamer, and, as especially

demanding attention, the establishment at Pensacola of the necessary means

of repairing and refitting the vessels of the Navy employed in the Gulf of

Mexico.

There are other suggestions in the report which deserve and I doubt not

will receive your consideration.

The progress and condition of the mail service for the past year are fully

presented in the report of the Postmaster-General. The revenue for the year

ending on the 30th of June last amounted to $3,487,199, which is

$802,642.45 less than that of the preceding year. The payments for that

Department during the same time amounted to $4,084,297.22. Of this sum

$597,097.80 have been drawn from the Treasury. The disbursements for the

year were $236,434.77 less than those of the preceding year. While the

disbursements have been thus diminished, the mail facilities have been

enlarged by new mail routes of 5,739 miles, an increase of transportation

of 1,764,145 miles, and the establishment of 418 new post-offices.

Contractors, postmasters, and others engaged in this branch of the service

have performed their duties with energy and faithfulness deserving

commendation. For many interesting details connected with the operations of

this establishment you are referred to the report of the

Postmaster-General, and his suggestions for improving its revenues are

recommended to your favorable consideration. I repeat the opinion expressed

in my last annual message that the business of this Department should be so

regulated that the revenues derived from it should be made to equal the

expenditures, and it is believed that this may be done by proper

modifications of the present laws, as suggested in the report of the

Postmaster-General, without changing the present rates of postage.

With full reliance upon the wisdom and patriotism of your deliberations, it

will be my duty, as it will be my anxious desire, to cooperate with you in

every constitutional effort to promote the welfare and maintain the honor

of our common country.

JAMES K. POLK

	Contents    Prev    Next    Last