Acting upon an enlightened sense of national justice and gratitude, it is confidently believed that Congress will be as mindful of this claim as it has been of others put forward by the States that in periods of extreme peril generously contributed to the service of the Union and enabled the General Government to discharge its obligations. The grounds upon which certain portions of it have been suspended or rejected will appear from the communications of the Secretary of War and Third Auditor herewith submitted.

ANDREW JACKSON.

January 4, 1830. To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit herewith a supplement to the treaty made with the Delaware tribe on the 3d of October, 1818, which, with the accompanying papers, is submitted to the Senate for their advice and consent as to the ratification of the same.

ANDREW JACKSON.

January 5, 1830. To the House of Representatives:

The subject of the inclosed memorial[4] having been adjudicated by the courts of the country, and decided against the memorialists, it is respectfully laid before Congress, the only power now to which they can appeal for relief.

ANDREW JACKSON

[Footnote 4: Of certain purchasers of land in Louisiana from the Government of Spain.]

January 5, 1830. To the Senate of the United States:

I submit herewith a report[5] from the Secretary of the Treasury, giving the information called for by a resolution of the Senate of the 24th December, 1828.

ANDREW JACKSON.

[Footnote 5: Transmitting statements of moneys appropriated and lands granted to the several States for purposes of education and construction of roads and canals, etc., since the adoption of the Constitution.]

WASHINGTON, January 14, 1830. To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:

I transmit to Congress copies of three Indian treaties, which have been duly ratified:

1. A treaty with the nation of Winnebago Indians, concluded on the 1st of August, 1829, at Prairie du Chien, in the Territory of Michigan, between General John McNeil, Colonel Pierre Menard, and Caleb At-water, esq., commissioners on the part of the United States, and certain chiefs and warriors on the part of the nation of Winnebago Indians.

2. A treaty with the united nations of Chippewa, Ottowa, and Pottawatomie Indians, concluded on the 29th of July, 1829, at Prairie du Chien, between General John McNeil, Colonel Pierre Menard, and Caleb Atwater, esq., commissioners on the part of the United States, and certain chiefs and warriors of the said united nations on the part of said nations.

3. Articles of agreement between the United States of America and the band of Delaware Indians upon the Sandusky River, in the State of Ohio, entered into on the 3d of August, 1829, at Little Sandusky, in the State of Ohio, by John McElvain, commissioner on the part of the United States, and certain chiefs on the part of said band of Delaware Indians.

I transmit also the estimates of appropriation necessary to carry them into effect.

ANDREW JACKSON.

January 19, 1830. To the Senate and House of Representatives.

GENTLEMEN: The accompanying gold medal, commemorative of the delivery of the Liberator President of the Republic of Colombia from the daggers of assassins on the night of the 25th of September last, has been offered for my acceptance by that Government. The respect which I entertain as well for the character of the Liberator President as for the people and Government over which he presides renders this mark of their regard most gratifying to my feelings; but I am prevented from complying with their wishes by the provision of our Constitution forbidding the acceptance of presents from a foreign state by officers of the United States, and it is therefore placed at the disposal of Congress.

The powerful influence in the affairs of his country which the sacrifices and heroic deeds of General Bolivar have acquired for him creates an anxiety as to his future course in which the friends of liberal institutions throughout the world deeply participate. The favorable estimate which I have formed of the nature of the services rendered by him, and of his personal character, impresses me with the strongest confidence that his conduct in the present condition of his country will be such as may best promote her true interest and best secure his own permanent fame.

I deem the present a suitable occasion to inform you that shortly after my communication to Congress at the opening of the session dispatches were received from Mr. Moore, the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States to Colombia, stating that he had succeeded in obtaining the assent of the council of ministers to the allowance of the claims of our citizens upon that Government in the cases of the brig Josephine and her cargo and the schooner Ranger and part of her cargo. An official copy of the convention subsequently entered into between Mr. Moore and the secretary of foreign affairs, providing for the final settlement of those claims, has just been received at the Department of State. By an additional article of this convention the claim in the case of the brig Morris is suspended until further information is obtained by the Colombian Government from the Court at Carracas; and Mr. Moore anticipates its early and satisfactory adjustment. The convention only waited the ratification of the Liberator President, who was at the time absent from Bogota, to be binding upon the Colombian Government. Although these claims are not, comparatively, of a large amount, yet the prompt and equitable manner in which the application of Mr. Moore in behalf of our injured citizens was met by that Government entitles its conduct to our approbation, and promises well for the future relations of the two countries.

It gives me pleasure to add an expression of my entire satisfaction with the conduct of Mr. Moore since his arrival at Bogota. The judgment and discretion evinced by him on occasions of much interest and delicacy, the assiduity displayed in bringing so nearly to a conclusion within five weeks after his arrival claims which had been pending for years, and the promptitude and capacity with which he has entered upon other and more important portions of his official duty are calculated to inspire strong confidence in his future usefulness.

ANDREW JACKSON.

January 20, 1830. To the Senate and House of Representatives.

GENTLEMEN: I respectfully submit to your consideration the accompanying communication from the Secretary or the Treasury, showing that according to the terms of an agreement between the United States and the United Society of Christian Indians the latter have a claim to an annuity of $400, commencing from the 1st of October, 1826, for which an appropriation by law for this amount, as long as they are entitled to receive it, will be proper.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, January 26, 1830. To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:

I submit to Congress a communication from the Secretary of State, together with the report of the Superintendent of the Patent Office, to which it refers, showing the present condition of that office and suggesting the necessity of further legislative provisions in regard to it, and I recommend the subjects it embraces to the particular attention of Congress.

It will be seen that there is an unexplained deficiency in the accounts which have been rendered at the Treasury of the fees received at the office, amounting to $4,290, and that precautions have been provided to guard against similar delinquencies in future. Congress will decide on their sufficiency and whether any legislative aid is necessary upon this branch of the subject referred to in the report.

ANDREW JACKSON.

January 26, 1830. To the Senate and House of Representatives:

I find it necessary to recommend to Congress a revision of the laws relating to the direct and contingent expenses of our intercourse with foreign nations, and particularly of the act of May 1, 1810, entitled "An act fixing the compensation of public ministers and of consuls residing on the coast of Barbary, and for other purposes."

A letter from the Fifth Auditor of the Treasury to the Secretary of State, herewith transmitted, which notices the difficulties incident to the settlement of the accounts of certain diplomatic agents of the United States, serves to show the necessity of this revision. This branch of the Government is incessantly called upon to sanction allowances which not unfrequently appear to have just and equitable foundations in usage, but which are believed to be incompatible with the provisions of the act of 1810. The letter from the Fifth Auditor contains a description of several claims of this character which are submitted to Congress as the only tribunal competent to afford the relief to which the parties consider themselves entitled.

Among the most prominent questions of this description are the following:

I. Claims for outfits by ministers and charges d'affaires duly appointed by the President and Senate.

The act of 1790, regulating the expenditures for foreign intercourse, provided "that, exclusive of an outfit, which shall in no case exceed one year's full salary to the minister plenipotentiary or charge d'affaires to whom the same may be allowed, the President shall not allow to any minister plenipotentiary a greater sum than at the rate of $9,000 per annum as a compensation for all his personal services and other expenses, nor a greater sum for the same than $4,500 per annum to a charge d'affaires." By this provision the maximum of allowance only was fixed, leaving the question as to any outfit, either in whole or in part, to the discretion of the President, to be decided according to circumstances. Under it a variety of cases occurred, in which outfits having been given to diplomatic agents on their first appointment, afterwards, upon their being transferred to other courts or sent upon special and distinct missions, full or half outfits were again allowed.

This act, it will be perceived, although it fixes the maximum of outfit, is altogether silent as to the circumstances under which outfits might be allowed; indeed, the authority to allow them at all is not expressly conveyed, but only incidentally adverted to in limiting the amount. This limitation continued to be the only restriction upon the Executive until 1810, the act of 1790 having been kept in force till that period by five successive reenactments, in which it is either referred to by means of its title or its terms are repeated verbatim. In 1810 an act passed wherein the phraseology which had been in use for twenty years is departed from. Fixing the same limits precisely to the amount of salaries and outfits to ministers and charges as had been six times fixed since 1790, it differs from preceding acts by formally conveying an authority to allow an outfit to "a minister plenipotentiary or charge d'affaires on going from the United States to any foreign country;" and, in addition to this specification of the circumstances under which the outfit may be allowed, it contains one of the conditions which shall be requisite to entitle a charge or secretary to the compensation therein provided.

Upon a view of all the circumstances connected with the subject I can not permit myself to doubt that it was with reference to the practice of multiplying outfits to the same person and in the intention of prohibiting it in future that this act was passed.

It being, however, frequently deemed advantageous to transfer ministers already abroad from one court to another, or to employ those who were resident at a particular court upon special occasions elsewhere, it seems to have been considered that it was not the intention of Congress to restrain the Executive from so doing. It was further contended that the President being left free to select for ministers citizens, whether at home or abroad, a right on the part of such ministers to the usual emoluments followed as a matter of course. This view was sustained by the opinion of the law officer of the Government, and the act of 1810 was construed to leave the whole subject of salary and outfit where it found it under the law of 1790; that is to say, completely at the discretion of the President, without any other restriction than the maximum already fixed by that law. This discretion has from time to time been exercised by successive Presidents; but whilst I can not but consider the restriction in this respect imposed by the act of 1810 as inexpedient, I can not feel myself justified in adopting a construction which defeats the only operation of which this part of it seems susceptible; at least, not unless Congress, after having the subject distinctly brought to their consideration, should virtually give their assent to that construction. Whatever may be thought of the propriety of giving an outfit to secretaries of legation or others who may be considered as only temporarily charged with, the affairs intrusted to them, I am impressed with the justice of such an allowance in the case of a citizen who happens to be abroad when first appointed, and that of a minister already in place, when the public interest requires his transfer, and, from the breaking up of his establishment and other circumstances connected with the change, he incurs expenses to which he would not otherwise have been subjected.

II. Claims for outfits and salaries by charges d'affaires and secretaries of legation who have not been appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

By the second section of the act of 1810 it is provided—

That to entitle any charge d'affaires or secretary of any legation or embassy to any foreign country, or secretary of any minister plenipotentiary, to the compensation hereinbefore provided they shall respectively be appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; but in the recess of the Senate the President is hereby authorized to make such appointments, which shall be submitted to the Senate at the next session thereafter for their advice and consent; and no compensation shall be allowed to any charge d'affaires or any of the secretaries hereinbefore described who shall not be appointed as aforesaid.

Notwithstanding the explicit language of this act, claims for outfits and salaries have been made—and allowed at the Treasury—by charges d'affaires and secretaries of legation who had not been appointed in the manner specified. Among the accompanying documents will be found several claims of this description, of which a detailed statement is given in the letter of the Fifth Auditor. The case of Mr. William B. Lawrence, late charge d'affaires at London, is of a still more peculiar character, in consequence of his having actually drawn his outfit and salary from the bankers employed by the Government, and from the length of time he officiated in that capacity. Mr. Lawrence's accounts were rendered to the late Administration, but not settled. I have refused to sanction the allowance claimed, because the law does not authorize it, but have refrained from directing any proceedings to compel a reimbursement of the money thus, in my judgment, illegally received until an opportunity should be afforded to Congress to pass upon the equity of the claim.

Appropriations are annually and necessarily made "for the contingent expenses of all the missions abroad" and "for the contingent expenses of foreign intercourse," and the expenditure of these funds intrusted to the discretion of the President. It is out of those appropriations that allowances of this character have been claimed, and, it is presumed, made. Deeming, however, that the discretion thus committed to the Executive does not extend to the allowance of charges prohibited by express law, I have felt it my duty to refer all existing claims to the action of Congress, and to submit to their consideration whether any alteration of the law in this respect is necessary.

III. The allowance of a quarter's salary to ministers and charges d'affaires to defray their expenses home.

This allowance has been uniformly made, but is without authority by law. Resting in Executive discretion, it has, according to circumstances, been extended to cases where the ministers died abroad, to defray the return of his family, and was recently claimed in a case where the minister had no family, on grounds of general equity. A charge of this description can hardly be regarded as a contingent one, and if allowed at all must be in lieu of salary. As such it is altogether arbitrary, although it is not believed that the interests of the Treasury are, upon the whole, much affected by the substitution. In some cases the allowance is for a longer period than is occupied in the return of the minister; in others, for one somewhat less; and it seems to do away all inducement to unnecessary delay. The subject is, however, susceptible of positive regulation by law, and it is, on many accounts, highly expedient that it should be placed on that footing. I have therefore, without directing any alteration in the existing practice, felt it my duty to bring it to your notice.

IV. Traveling and other expenses in following the court in cases where its residence is not stationary.

The only legations by which expenses of this description are incurred and charged are those to Spain and the Netherlands, and to them they have on several occasions been allowed. Among the documents herewith communicated will be found, with other charges requiring legislative interference, an account for traveling expenses, with a statement of the grounds upon which their reimbursement is claimed. This account has been suspended by the officer of the Treasury to whom its settlement belongs; and as the question will be one of frequent recurrence, I have deemed the occasion a fit one to submit the whole subject to the revision of Congress. The justice of these charges for extraordinary expenses unavoidably incurred has been admitted by former Administrations and the claims allowed. My difficulty grows out of the language of the act of 1810, which expressly declares that the salary and outfit it authorizes to the minister and charge d'affaires shall be "a compensation for all his personal services and expenses." The items which ordinarily form the contingent expenses of a foreign mission are of a character distinct from the personal expenses of the minister. The difficulty of regarding those now referred to in that light is obvious. There are certainly strong considerations of equity in favor of a remuneration for them at the two Courts where they are alone incurred, and if such should be the opinion of Congress it is desirable that authority to make it should be expressly conferred by law rather than continue to rest upon doubtful construction.

V. Charges of consuls for discharging diplomatic functions, without appointment, during a temporary vacancy in the office of charge d'affaires.

It has sometimes happened that consuls of the United States, upon the occurrence of vacancies at their places of residence in the diplomatic offices of the United States by the death or retirement of our minister or charge d'affaires, have taken under their care the papers of such missions and usefully discharged diplomatic functions in behalf of their Government and fellow-citizens till the vacancies were regularly filled. In some instances this is stated to have been done to the abandonment of other pursuits and at a considerably increased expense of living. There are existing claims of this description, which can not be finally adjusted or allowed without the sanction of Congress. A particular statement of them accompanies this communication.

The nature of this branch of the public service makes it necessary to commit portions of the expenses incurred in it to Executive discretion; but it is desirable that such portions should be as small as possible. The purity and permanent success of our political institutions depend in a great measure upon definite appropriations and a rigid adherence to the enactments of the Legislature disposing of public money. My desire is to have the subject placed upon a more simple and precise, but not less liberal, footing than it stands on at present, so far as that may be found practicable. An opinion that the salaries allowed by law to our agents abroad are in many cases inadequate is very general, and it is reasonable to suppose that this impression has not been without its influence in the construction of the laws by which those salaries are fixed. There are certainly motives which it is difficult to resist to an increased expense on the part of some of our functionaries abroad greatly beyond that which would be required at home.

Should Congress be of opinion that any alteration for the better can be made, either in the rate of salaries now allowed or in the rank and gradation of our diplomatic agents, or both, the present would be a fit occasion for a revision of the whole subject.

ANDREW JACKSON.

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States.

GENTLEMEN: I transmit herewith the annual report of the inspectors of the penitentiary in the District of Columbia, and beg leave to recommend the propriety of providing by law a reasonable compensation for the service of those officers. The act of Congress under which they were commissioned, though it imposes upon them important duties, in the performance of which much time and labor are necessary, is silent as to the compensation which they ought to receive.

ANDREW JACKSON. February 1, 1830.

February 5, 1830. To the Senate of the United States:

I herewith communicate to the Senate a letter from the Secretary of War, with the papers which accompany it, in answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 2d February, requesting "so much of a report received from the officer of the United States Army who had command of the detachment for the protection of the caravan of traders to Santa Fe of New Mexico during the last summer as may be proper to be made public and material to be known, devising further means for the security of the inland trade between Missouri and Mexico."

ANDREW JACKSON.

February 12, 1830. The Speaker of the House of Representatives:

I forward to the House of Representatives, for the information and decision of Congress, a communication to me from the Secretary of War on the subject of the continuation of the Cumberland road.

There being but one plan of the surveys made produces the necessity of making this communication to but one branch of the Legislature. When the question shall be disposed of, I request that the map may be returned to the Secretary of War.

ANDREW JACKSON.

February 18, 1830. To the House of Representatives:

In pursuance of a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 9th instant, requesting information respecting the accounts of William B. Lawrence as charge d'affaires of the United States to Great Britain, I have the honor to communicate a report of the Secretary of State, furnishing the desired information.

ANDREW JACKSON.

February 20, 1830. To the Senate of the United States.

GENTLEMEN: Having seen a report from the Treasury Department, just made to me, that General John Campbell, lately nominated Indian agent, stands recorded as a public defaulter on the books of the Treasury, and being unapprised of this fact when he was nominated to the Senate, I beg leave to withdraw this nomination.

ANDREW JACKSON.

March 1, 1830. To the Senate of the United States.

GENTLEMEN: In compliance with your resolution of the 4th ultimo, relating to the boundary line between the United States and the Cherokee Nation of Indians, I have duly examined the same, and find that the Executive has no power to alter or correct it.

I therefore return the papers, with a report from the Secretary of War on the subject, for the further deliberation of Congress.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, March 9, 1830. Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:

I submit to the consideration of Congress a letter of the governor of Virginia, transmitting two acts of the general assembly of that State, respecting the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, March 9, 1830. Gentlemen of the House of Representatives:

I submit to your consideration the memorials of Francis H. Nicoll and John Conard, the latter marshal of the eastern district of Pennsylvania, praying for the interposition and aid of Congress in the discharge of a judgment recovered against him by the said Nicoll, alleging, as defendant in the suit, that he was the mere organ of the United States, and acted by and under the instructions of the Government.

ANDREW JACKSON.

March 10, 1830. To the Senate of the United States.

GENTLEMEN: In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 6th instant, requesting me to "send a copy of the bond entered into and executed by Israel T. Canfield as receiver of public moneys in the now Crawfordsville district, Indiana, together with the names of his securities, to the Senate," I herewith transmit a certified copy of the official bond of Israel T. Canby, and a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, from which it appears that this is the officer referred to in the resolution.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, March 15, 1830. To the House of Representatives of the United States:

In pursuance of a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 27th ultimo, calling for information respecting the report of the commissioner for running and marking the line between the United States and Florida under the treaty of 1795, I herewith communicate a report from the Secretary of State, containing the desired information.

ANDREW JACKSON.

March 18, 1830. To the House of Representatives:

GENTLEMEN: I transmit, for the consideration of Congress, a report from the War Department of a survey[6] authorized by the act of the 2d of March, 1829.

ANDREW JACKSON.

[Footnote 6: Of ship channel of Penobscot River from Whitehead to Bangor, Me.]

March 27, 1830. To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States.

GENTLEMEN: I transmit, for the consideration of Congress, a letter of the Secretary of the Navy, accompanying the reports of Lieutenants Tattnall and Gedney, who were detailed to make a survey of the Dry Tortugas, and beg leave to call your attention to the importance of the position to the United States as a naval station. I also respectfully recommend that the appropriation necessary to make a scientific examination of its capacities for defense may be granted.

ANDREW JACKSON.

March 31, 1830. To the House of Representatives.

GENTLEMEN: I respectfully submit to your consideration the accompanying report from the War Department, exhibiting the state of the fortifications at Pea Patch Island and the necessity of further appropriations for the security of that site. The report specifies the improvements deemed proper, and the estimate of their cost.

ANDREW JACKSON.

April 2, 1830. To the House of Representatives.

GENTLEMEN: In compliance with a resolution of the House of the 22nd ultimo, "requesting the President of the United States to communicate to it any correspondence or information in possession of the Government, and which, in his judgment, the public service will admit of being communicated, touching intrusions, or alleged intrusions, on lands the possession of which is claimed by the Cherokee tribe of Indians, the number of intrusions, if any, and the reasons why they have not been removed; and also any correspondence or information touching outrages alleged to have been committed by Cherokee Indians on citizens of Georgia occupying lands to which the Indian claim has not been extinguished, or by citizens of Georgia on Cherokee Indians," I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of War, containing the information required.

ANDREW JACKSON.

April 6, 1830. To the Senate of the United States.

GENTLEMEN: In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 5th instant, requesting the President of the United States to transmit to the Senate any record or other information in the Department of War or before the President respecting the conviction of Wharton Rector of any crime in Missouri before his departure for Arkansas, or touching his fitness for the office to which he has been nominated, and any other evidence in the Department relative to the fitness of Wharton Rector for the office of Indian agent, I inclose herewith a report from the Secretary of War.

ANDREW JACKSON.

April 13, 1830. To the House of Representatives.

GENTLEMEN: I transmit herewith a report from the War Department, in compliance with the resolution of the House of the 18th ultimo, calling for information in relation to the expenses incident to the removal and support of the Indians west of the Mississippi, etc.

ANDREW JACKSON.

April 15, 1830. To the Senate of the United States.

GENTLEMEN: I submit to the Senate, in compliance with the request in their resolution of the 12th instant, all the communications found in the Department of State touching the character, conduct, and qualifications of John Hamm, which appear or are supposed to have been made while the said Hamm was an applicant for reappointment to the office of marshal of the district of Ohio, in the year 1822.

As that individual has been recently nominated to the Senate to be charge d'affaires of the United States to the Government of Central America, I take advantage of the occasion to request the Senate to postpone a final decision on his nomination, upon the following grounds: That information, though not official, has just been received at the Department of State of a change having been lately effected in the Government of Central America, which, if confirmed, may make a correspondent change in the appointment necessary, or perhaps render it altogether unnecessary that this Government, under present circumstances, should send a diplomatic agent to that country at all.

ANDREW JACKSON.

April 22, 1830. To the House of Representatives.

GENTLEMEN: I transmit, for the consideration of Congress, a report from the War Department of a survey[7] authorized by the act of 2d March, 1829.

ANDREW JACKSON.

[Footnote 7: Of the harbor of St. Augustine, Fla.]

April, 23, 1830. To the Senate of the United States.

GENTLEMEN: In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 20th instant, I transmit herewith a report[8] from the Secretary of War.

ANDREW JACKSON.

[Footnote 8: Transmitting correspondence of June, 1825, relative to treaties with the Osage and Kansas Indians.]

April 23, 1830. Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives.

GENTLEMEN: I transmit herewith a report from the Department of War of the survey made of Sandy Bay, Massachusetts, in conformity to the act of 2d March, 1829.

ANDREW JACKSON.

May 1, 1830. To the Senate of the United States.

GENTLEMEN: Finding from the inclosed letter from the Secretary of the Treasury that James C. Dickson, lately nominated to be receiver of public moneys at Mount Salus, Miss., is a defaulter, I beg leave to withdraw his nomination, and to nominate in his place Hiram G. Rennels.

ANDREW JACKSON.

May 6, 1830. To the Senate of the United States.

GENTLEMEN: The accompanying propositions, in the form of a treaty, have been recently sent to me by special messenger from the Choctaw Nation of Indians, and since it was received a protest against it has been forwarded. Both evince a desire to cede to the United States all their country east of the Mississippi, and both are here submitted. These measures are the voluntary acts of the Indians themselves. The Government was not represented in the councils which adopted them, nor had it any previous intimation that such steps were in contemplation. The Indians convened of their own accord, settled and executed the propositions contained in the treaty presented to me, and agreed to be bound by them if within three months they should receive the approbation of the President and Senate. The other measure is equally their own.

It is certainly desirous, on various and very pressing accounts, as will appear from the accompanying documents, that some agreement should be concluded with the Indians by which an object so important as their removal beyond the territorial limits of the States may be effected. In settling the terms of such an agreement I am disposed to exercise the utmost liberality, and to concur in any which are consistent with the Constitution and not incompatible with the interests of the United States and their duties to the Indians. I can not, however, regard the terms proposed by the Choctaws to be in all respects of this character; but desirous of concluding an arrangement upon such as are, I have drawn up the accompanying amendments, which I propose to offer to the Choctaws if they meet the approbation of the Senate. The conditions which they offer are such as, in my judgment, will be most likely to be acceptable to both parties and are liable to the fewest objections. Not being tenacious, though, on the subject, I will most cheerfully adopt any modifications which on a frank interchange of opinions my constitutional advisers may suggest and which I shall be satisfied are reconcilable with my official duties.

With these views, I ask the opinion of the Senate upon the following questions:

Will the Senate advise the conclusion of a treaty with the Choctaw Nation according to the terms which they propose? Or will the Senate advise the conclusion of a treaty with that tribe as modified by the alterations suggested by me? If not, what further alteration or modification will the Senate propose?

I am fully aware that in thus resorting to the early practice of the Government, by asking the previous advice of the Senate in the discharge of this portion of my duties, I am departing from a long and for many years an unbroken usage in similar cases. But being satisfied that this resort is consistent with the provisions of the Constitution, that it is strongly recommended in this instance by considerations of expediency, and that the reasons which have led to the observance of a different practice, though very cogent in negotiations with foreign nations, do not apply with equal force to those made with Indian tribes, I flatter myself that it will not meet the disapprobation of the Senate. Among the reasons for a previous expression of the views of the Senate the following are stated as most prominent:

1. The Indians have requested that their propositions should be submitted to the Senate.

2. The opinion of the Senate in relation to the terms to be proposed will have a salutary effect in a future negotiation, if one should be deemed proper.

3. The Choctaw is one of the most numerous and powerful tribes within our borders, and as the conclusion of a treaty with them may have a controlling effect upon other tribes it is important that its terms should be well considered. Those now proposed by the Choctaws, though objectionable, it is believed are susceptible of modifications which will leave them conformable to the humane and liberal policy which the Government desires to observe toward the Indian tribes, and be at the same time acceptable to them. To be possessed of the views of the Senate on this important and delicate branch of our future negotiations would enable the President to act much more effectively in the exercise of his particular functions. There is also the best reason to believe that measures in this respect emanating from the united counsel of the treaty-making power would be more satisfactory to the American people and to the Indians.

It will be seen that the pecuniary stipulations are large; and in bringing this subject to the consideration of the Senate I may be allowed to remark that the amount of money which may be secured to be paid should, in my judgment, be viewed as of minor importance. If a fund adequate to the object in view can be obtained from the lands which they cede, all the purposes of the Government should be regarded as answered. The great desideratum is the removal of the Indians and the settlement of the perplexing question involved in their present location—a question in which several of the States of this Union have the deepest interest, and which, if left undecided much longer, may eventuate in serious injury to the Indians.

ANDREW JACKSON.

May 13, 1830. To the House of Representatives.

GENTLEMEN: The inclosed documents will present to Congress the necessity of some legislative provision by which to prevent the offenses to which they refer. At present it appears there is no law existing for the punishment of persons guilty of interrupting the public surveyors when engaged in the performance of the trusts confided to them. I suggest, therefore, for your consideration the propriety of adopting some provision, with adequate penalties, to meet the case.

ANDREW JACKSON.

May 13, 1830. To the House of Representatives.

GENTLEMEN: I have the honor, in compliance with a resolution of your House of the 10th ultimo, to transmit the inclosed documents, which furnish all the information of the steps that have been taken and plans procured for the erection of a radiating marine railway for the repair of sloops of war at the navy-yard at Pensacola.

ANDREW JACKSON.

May 14, 1830. To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States.

GENTLEMEN: I herewith transmit to Congress the report of the engineer employed to survey the bar at the mouth of Sag Harbor, to ascertain the best method of preventing the harbor being filled up with sand, and the cost of the same, authorized by the act of the 2d of March, 1829.

ANDREW JACKSON.

May 21, 1830. To the Senate of the United States.

GENTLEMEN: It having been represented to me that some of the members of the Senate voted against the confirmation of the appointment of Major M.M. Noah as surveyor of the port of New York through misapprehension, and having received the accompanying letter and memorial from a number of the most respectable merchants and citizens of that city, setting forth his fitness for the office, I therefore renominate him to the Senate as surveyor of the customs for the port of New York.

ANDREW JACKSON.

May 25, 1830. To the House of Representatives.

GENTLEMEN: I transmit herewith, for the use of the House, the report of a survey[9] made in compliance with the act of the 2d of March, 1829.

ANDREW JACKSON.

[Footnote 9: Of the harbors of Stamford and Norwalk, Conn.]

WASHINGTON, May 26, 1830. To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States.

GENTLEMEN: I think it my duty to inform you that I am daily expecting the definitive answer of the British Government to a proposition which has been submitted to it by this, upon the subject of the colonial trade.

This communication has been delayed by a confident belief that the answer referred to would have been received early enough to have admitted of its submission to you in sufficient season for the final action of Congress at its present session, and is now induced by an apprehension that although the packet by which it was intended to be sent is hourly expected, its arrival may, nevertheless, be delayed until after your adjournment.

Should this branch of the negotiation committed to our minister be successful, the present interdict would, nevertheless, be necessarily continued until the next session of Congress, as the President has in no event authority to remove it.

Although no decision had been made at the date of our last advices from Mr. McLane, yet from the general character of the interviews between him and those of His Majesty's ministers whose particular duty it was to confer with him on the subject there is sufficient reason to expect a favorable result to justify me in submitting to you the propriety of providing for a decision in the recess.

This may be done by authorizing the President, in case an arrangement can be effected upon such terms as Congress would approve, to carry the same into effect on our part by proclamation, or, if it should be thought advisable, to execute the views of Congress by like means in the event of an unfavorable decision.

Any information in the possession of the Executive which you may deem necessary to guide your deliberations, and which it may, under existing circumstances, be proper to communicate, shall be promptly laid before you, if required.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, May 27, 1830. To the Senate of the United States:

It is gratifying to me to be able to communicate to the Senate before the termination of its present session, for its advice and consent as to the ratification of it, a convention just received at the Department of State between the United States and His Majesty the King of Denmark, which was negotiated on the part of the former by Mr. Henry Wheaton, their charge d'affaires at the Court of Denmark, and on that of the latter by the Sieurs Henry Count de Schemmelman, his minister of foreign affairs, and Paul Christian de Stemann, president of his chancery, and concluded and signed by these plenipotentiaries at Copenhagen on the 28th of March of the present year.

The convention provides by compromise for the adjustment and payment of indemnities to no inconsiderable amount, long sought from the Government of Denmark by that of the United States, in behalf of their citizens who had preferred claims for the same, relating to the seizure, detention, and condemnation or confiscation of their vessels, cargoes, or property by the public armed ships or by the tribunals of Denmark or in the states subject to the Danish scepter; and there is every reason to believe, as the Senate will infer from the correspondence which accompanies this communication, that the proposed arrangement will prove entirely satisfactory to them.

ANDREW JACKSON.

May 28, 1830. To the Senate of the United States.

GENTLEMEN: For the reasons expressed in the inclosed note, I renominate Wharton Rector to be agent for the Shawnee and Delaware Indians.

ANDREW JACKSON.

The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

SIR: The rejection of Colonel Rector by the Senate took place in the absence of Mr. McLean and myself. We were both confined to our rooms by illness. Had we been present his nomination would have been confirmed. I believe that if he were again placed before the Senate his nomination would be confirmed, and should therefore be pleased if he could be again nominated.

I have the honor to be, your obedient servant, J. ROWAN.

May 29, 1830. To the House of Representatives.

GENTLEMEN: Having approved and signed a resolution, originating in the House of Representatives, which provides "that the pay, subsistence, emoluments, and allowances received by the officers of the Marine Corps previous to the 1st of April, 1829, be, and the same is hereby, directed to be continued to them from that date up to the 28th of February, 1831," it becomes my duty to call the attention of Congress to the fact that the estimates for that branch of the public service submitted to them at the commencement of the present session were made with reference to the pay, subsistence, emoluments, and allowances provided for by law, and excluding those which previously to the 1st of April, 1829, had been made on the authority of the Department alone, and to suggest the propriety of an appropriation to meet the increased expenditure.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, May 29, 1830. To the Senate of the United States:

I submit herewith a report[10] from the Secretary of the Treasury, giving the information called for by a resolution of the Senate of the 3d of March, 1829.

ANDREW JACKSON.

[Footnote 10: Transmitting statements of lands appropriated by Congress for specific objects within the several States, etc.; disbursements made within the several States and Territories from the commencement of the Government to December 31, 1828; value of exports from the commencement of the Government to September 30, 1828. ]

May 30, 1830. To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States.

Gentlemen: I have approved and signed the bill entitled "An act making appropriations for examinations and surveys, and also for certain works of internal improvement," but as the phraseology of the section which appropriates the sum of $8,000 for the road from Detroit to Chicago may be construed to authorize the application of the appropriation for the continuance of the road beyond the limits of the Territory of Michigan, I desire to be understood as having approved this bill with the understanding that the road authorized by this section is not to be extended beyond the limits of the said Territory.

ANDREW JACKSON.



VETO MESSAGES.

May 27, 1830. To the House of Representatives.

Gentlemen: I have maturely considered the bill proposing to authorize "a subscription of stock in the Maysville, Washington, Paris, and Lexington Turnpike Road Company," and now return the same to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with my objections to its passage.

Sincerely friendly to the improvement of our country by means of roads and canals, I regret that any difference of opinion in the mode of contributing to it should exist between us; and if in stating this difference I go beyond what the occasion may be deemed to call for, I hope to find an apology in the great importance of the subject, an unfeigned respect for the high source from which this branch of it has emanated, and an anxious wish to be correctly understood by my constituents in the discharge of all my duties. Diversity of sentiment among public functionaries actuated by the same general motives, on the character and tendency of particular measures, is an incident common to all Governments, and the more to be expected in one which, like ours, owes its existence to the freedom of opinion, and must be upheld by the same influence. Controlled as we thus are by a higher tribunal, before which our respective acts will be canvassed with the indulgence due to the imperfections of our nature, and with that intelligence and unbiased judgment which are the true correctives of error, all that our responsibility demands is that the public good should be the measure of our views, dictating alike their frank expression and honest maintenance.

In the message which was presented to Congress at the opening of its present session I endeavored to exhibit briefly my views upon the important and highly interesting subject to which our attention is now to be directed. I was desirous of presenting to the representatives of the several States in Congress assembled the inquiry whether some mode could not be devised which would reconcile the diversity of opinion concerning the powers of this Government over the subject of internal improvement, and the manner in which these powers, if conferred by the Constitution, ought to be exercised. The act which I am called upon to consider has, therefore, been passed with a knowledge of my views on this question, as these are expressed in the message referred to. In that document the following suggestions will be found:

After the extinction of the public debt it is not probable that any adjustment of the tariff upon principles satisfactory to the people of the Union will until a remote period, if ever, leave the Government without a considerable surplus in the Treasury beyond what may be required for its current service. As, then, the period approaches when the application of the revenue to the payment of debt will cease, the disposition of the surplus will present a subject for the serious deliberation of Congress; and it may be fortunate for the country that it is yet to be decided. Considered in connection with the difficulties which have heretofore attended appropriations for purposes of internal improvement, and with those which this experience tells us will certainly arise whenever power over such subjects may be exercised by the General Government, it is hoped that it may lead to the adoption of some plan which will reconcile the diversified interests of the States and strengthen the bonds which unite them. Every member of the Union, in peace and in war, will be benefited by the improvement of inland navigation and the construction of highways in the several States. Let us, then, endeavor to attain this benefit in a mode which will be satisfactory to all. That hitherto adopted has by many of our fellow-citizens been deprecated as an infraction of the Constitution, while by others it has been viewed as inexpedient. All feel that it has been employed at the expense of harmony in the legislative councils.

And adverting to the constitutional power of Congress to make what I considered a proper disposition of the surplus revenue, I subjoined the following remarks:

To avoid these evils it appears to me that the most safe, just, and federal disposition which could be made of the surplus revenue would be its apportionment among the several States according to their ratio of representation, and should this measure not be found warranted by the Constitution that it would be expedient to propose to the States an amendment authorizing it.

The constitutional power of the Federal Government to construct or promote works of internal improvement presents itself in two points of view—the first as bearing upon the sovereignty of the States within whose limits their execution is contemplated, if jurisdiction of the territory which they may occupy be claimed as necessary to their preservation and use; the second as asserting the simple right to appropriate money from the National Treasury in aid of such works when undertaken by State authority, surrendering the claim of jurisdiction. In the first view the question of power is an open one, and can be decided without the embarrassments attending the other, arising from the practice of the Government. Although frequently and strenuously attempted, the power to this extent has never been exercised by the Government in a single instance. It does not, in my opinion, possess it; and no bill, therefore, which admits it can receive my official sanction.

But in the other view of the power the question is differently situated. The ground taken at an early period of the Government was "that whenever money has been raised by the general authority and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if not, no such application can be made." The document in which this principle was first advanced is of deservedly high authority, and should be held in grateful remembrance for its immediate agency in rescuing the country from much existing abuse and for its conservative effect upon some of the most valuable principles of the Constitution. The symmetry and purity of the Government would doubtless have been better preserved if this restriction of the power of appropriation could have been maintained without weakening its ability to fulfill the general objects of its institution, an effect so likely to attend its admission, notwithstanding its apparent fitness, that every subsequent Administration of the Government, embracing a period of thirty out of the forty-two years of its existence, has adopted a more enlarged construction of the power. It is not my purpose to detain you by a minute recital of the acts which sustain this assertion, but it is proper that I should notice some of the most prominent in order that the reflections which they suggest to my mind may be better understood.

In the Administration of Mr. Jefferson we have two examples of the exercise of the right of appropriation, which in the considerations that led to their adoption and in their effects upon the public mind have had a greater agency in marking the character of the power than any subsequent events. I allude to the payment of $15,000,000 for the purchase of Louisiana and to the original appropriation for the construction of the Cumberland road, the latter act deriving much weight from the acquiescence and approbation of three of the most powerful of the original members of the Confederacy, expressed through their respective legislatures. Although the circumstances of the latter case may be such as to deprive so much of it as relates to the actual construction of the road of the force of an obligatory exposition of the Constitution, it must, nevertheless, be admitted that so far as the mere appropriation of money is concerned they present the principle in its most imposing aspect. No less than twenty-three different laws have been passed, through all the forms of the Constitution, appropriating upward of $2,500,000 out of the National Treasury in support of that improvement, with the approbation of every President of the United States, including my predecessor, since its commencement.

Independently of the sanction given to appropriations for the Cumberland and other roads and objects under this power, the Administration of Mr. Madison was characterized by an act which furnishes the strongest evidence of his opinion of its extent. A bill was passed through both Houses of Congress and presented for his approval, "setting apart and pledging certain funds for constructing roads and canals and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense." Regarding the bill as asserting a power in the Federal Government to construct roads and canals within the limits of the States in which they were made, he objected to its passage on the ground of its unconstitutionality, declaring that the assent of the respective States in the mode provided by the bill could not confer the power in question; that the only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution, and superadding to these avowals his opinion that "a restriction of the power 'to provide for the common defense and general welfare' to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution." I have not been able to consider these declarations in any other point of view than as a concession that the right of appropriation is not limited by the power to carry into effect the measure for which the money is asked, as was formerly contended.

The views of Mr. Monroe upon this subject were not left to inference. During his Administration a bill was passed through both Houses of Congress conferring the jurisdiction and prescribing the mode by which the Federal Government should exercise it in the case of the Cumberland road. He returned it with objections to its passage, and in assigning them took occasion to say that in the early stages of the Government he had inclined to the construction that it had no right to expend money except in the performance of acts authorized by the other specific grants of power, according to a strict construction of them, but that on further reflection and observation his mind had undergone a change; that his opinion then was "that Congress have an unlimited power to raise money, and that in its appropriation they have a discretionary power, restricted only by the duty to appropriate it to purposes of common defense, and of general, not local, national, not State, benefit;" and this was avowed to be the governing principle through the residue of his Administration. The views of the last Administration are of such recent date as to render a particular reference to them unnecessary. It is well known that the appropriating power, to the utmost extent which had been claimed for it, in relation to internal improvements was fully recognized and exercised by it.

This brief reference to known facts will be sufficient to show the difficulty, if not impracticability, of bringing back the operations of the Government to the construction of the Constitution set up in 1798, assuming that to be its true reading in relation to the power under consideration, thus giving an admonitory proof of the force of implication and the necessity of guarding the Constitution with sleepless vigilance against the authority of precedents which have not the sanction of its most plainly defined powers; for although it is the duty of all to look to that sacred instrument instead of the statute book, to repudiate at all times encroachments upon its spirit, which are too apt to be effected by the conjuncture of peculiar and facilitating circumstances, it is not less true that the public good and the nature of our political institutions require that individual differences should yield to a well-settled acquiescence of the people and confederated authorities in particular constructions of the Constitution on doubtful points. Not to concede this much to the spirit of our institutions would impair their stability and defeat the objects of the Constitution itself.

The bill before me does not call for a more definite opinion upon the particular circumstances which will warrant appropriations of money by Congress to aid works of internal improvement, for although the extension of the power to apply money beyond that of carrying into effect the object for which it is appropriated has, as we have seen, been long claimed and exercised by the Federal Government, yet such grants have always been professedly under the control of the general principle that the works which might be thus aided should be "of a general, not local, national, not State," character. A disregard of this distinction would of necessity lead to the subversion of the federal system. That even this is an unsafe one, arbitrary in its nature, and liable, consequently, to great abuses, is too obvious to require the confirmation of experience. It is, however, sufficiently definite and imperative to my mind to forbid my approbation of any bill having the character of the one under consideration. I have given to its provisions all the reflection demanded by a just regard for the interests of those of our fellow-citizens who have desired its passage, and by the respect which is due to a coordinate branch of the Government, but I am not able to view it in any other light than as a measure of purely local character; or, if it can be considered national, that no further distinction between the appropriate duties of the General and State Governments need be attempted, for there can be no local interest that may not with equal propriety be denominated national. It has no connection with any established system of improvements; is exclusively within the limits of a State, starting at a point on the Ohio River and running out 60 miles to an interior town, and even as far as the State is interested conferring partial instead of general advantages.

Considering the magnitude and importance of the power, and the embarrassments to which, from the very nature of the thing, its exercise must necessarily be subjected, the real friends of internal improvement ought not to be willing to confide it to accident and chance. What is properly national in its character or otherwise is an inquiry which is often extremely difficult of solution. The appropriations of one year for an object which is considered national may be rendered nugatory by the refusal of a succeeding Congress to continue the work on the ground that it is local. No aid can be derived from the intervention of corporations. The question regards the character of the work, not that of those by whom it is to be accomplished. Notwithstanding the union of the Government with the corporation by whose immediate agency any work of internal improvement is carried on, the inquiry will still remain. Is it national and conducive to the benefit of the whole, or local and operating only to the advantage of a portion of the Union?

But although I might not feel it to be my official duty to interpose the Executive veto to the passage of a bill appropriating money for the construction of such works as are authorized by the States and are national in their character, I do not wish to be understood as expressing an opinion that it is expedient at this time for the General Government to embark in a system of this kind; and anxious that my constituents should be possessed of my views on this as well as on all other subjects which they have committed to my discretion, I shall state them frankly and briefly. Besides many minor considerations, there are two prominent views of the subject which have made a deep impression upon my mind, which, I think, are well entitled to your serious attention, and will, I hope, be maturely weighed by the people.

From the official communication submitted to you it appears that if no adverse and unforeseen contingency happens in our foreign relations and no unusual diversion be made of the funds set apart for the payment of the national debt we may look with confidence to its entire extinguishment in the short period of four years. The extent to which this pleasing anticipation is dependent upon the policy which may be pursued in relation to measures of the character of the one now under consideration must be obvious to all, and equally so that the events of the present session are well calculated to awaken public solicitude upon the subject. By the statement from the Treasury Department and those from the clerks of the Senate and House of Representatives, herewith submitted, it appears that the bills which have passed into laws, and those which in all probability will pass before the adjournment of Congress, anticipate appropriations which, with the ordinary expenditures for the support of Government, will exceed considerably the amount in the Treasury for the year 1830. Thus, whilst we are diminishing the revenue by a reduction of the duties on tea, coffee, and cocoa the appropriations for internal improvement are increasing beyond the available means of the Treasury. And if to this calculation be added the amounts contained in bills which are pending before the two Houses, it may be safely affirmed that $10,000,000 would not make up the excess over the Treasury receipts, unless the payment of the national debt be postponed and the means now pledged to that object applied to those enumerated in these bills. Without a well-regulated system of internal improvement this exhausting mode of appropriation is not likely to be avoided, and the plain consequence must be either a continuance of the national debt or a resort to additional taxes.

Although many of the States, with a laudable zeal and under the influence of an enlightened policy, are successfully applying their separate efforts to works of this character, the desire to enlist the aid of the General Government in the construction of such as from their nature ought to devolve upon it, and to which the means of the individual States are inadequate, is both rational and patriotic, and if that desire is not gratified now it does not follow that it never will be. The general intelligence and public spirit of the American people furnish a sure guaranty that at the proper time this policy will be made to prevail under circumstances more auspicious to its successful prosecution than those which now exist. But great as this object undoubtedly is, it is not the only one which demands the fostering care of the Government. The preservation and success of the republican principle rest with us. To elevate its character and extend its influence rank among our most important duties, and the best means to accomplish this desirable end are those which will rivet the attachment of our citizens to the Government of their choice by the comparative lightness of their public burthens and by the attraction which the superior success of its operations will present to the admiration and respect of the world. Through the favor of an overruling and indulgent Providence our country is blessed with general prosperity and our citizens exempted from the pressure of taxation, which other less favored portions of the human family are obliged to bear; yet it is true that many of the taxes collected from our citizens through the medium of imposts have for a considerable period been onerous. In many particulars these taxes have borne severely upon the laboring and less prosperous classes of the community, being imposed on the necessaries of life, and this, too, in cases where the burthen was not relieved by the consciousness that it would ultimately contribute to make us independent of foreign nations for articles of prime necessity by the encouragement of their growth and manufacture at home. They have been cheerfully borne because they were thought to be necessary to the support of Government and the payment of the debts unavoidably incurred in the acquisition and maintenance of our national rights and liberties. But have we a right to calculate on the same cheerful acquiescence when it is known that the necessity for their continuance would cease were it not for irregular, improvident, and unequal appropriations of the public funds? Will not the people demand, as they have a right to do, such a prudent system of expenditure as will pay the debts of the Union and authorize the reduction of every tax to as low a point as the wise observance of the necessity to protect that portion of our manufactures and labor whose prosperity is essential to our national safety and independence will allow? When the national debt is paid, the duties upon those articles which we do not raise may be repealed with safety, and still leave, I trust, without oppression to any section of the country, an accumulating surplus fund, which may be beneficially applied to some well-digested system of improvement.

Under this view the question as to the manner in which the Federal Government can or ought to embark in the construction of roads and canals, and the extent to which it may impose burthens on the people for these purposes, may be presented on its own merits, free of all disguise and of every embarrassment, except such as may arise from the Constitution itself. Assuming these suggestions to be correct, will not our constituents require the observance of a course by which they can be effected? Ought they not to require it? With the best disposition to aid, as far as I can conscientiously, in furtherance of works of internal improvement, my opinion is that the soundest views of national policy at this time point to such a course. Besides the avoidance of an evil influence upon the local concerns of the country, how solid is the advantage which the Government will reap from it in the elevation of its character! How gratifying the effect of presenting to the world the sublime spectacle of a Republic of more than 12,000,000 happy people, in the fifty-fourth year of her existence, after having passed through two protracted wars—the one for the acquisition and the other for the maintenance of liberty—free from debt and with all her immense resources unfettered! What a salutary influence would not such an exhibition exercise upon the cause of liberal principles and free government throughout the world! Would we not ourselves find in its effect an additional guaranty that our political institutions will be transmitted to the most remote posterity without decay? A course of policy destined to witness events like these can not be benefited by a legislation which tolerates a scramble for appropriations that have no relation to any general system of improvement, and whose good effects must of necessity be very limited. In the best view of these appropriations, the abuses to which they lead far exceed the good which they are capable of promoting. They may be resorted to as artful expedients to shift upon the Government the losses of unsuccessful private speculation, and thus, by ministering to personal ambition and self-aggrandizement, tend to sap the foundations of public virtue and taint the administration of the Government with a demoralizing influence.

In the other view of the subject, and the only remaining one which it is my intention to present at this time, is involved the expediency of embarking in a system of internal improvement without a previous amendment of the Constitution explaining and defining the precise powers of the Federal Government over it. Assuming the right to appropriate money to aid in the construction of national works to be warranted by the cotemporaneous and continued exposition of the Constitution, its insufficiency for the successful prosecution of them must be admitted by all candid minds. If we look to usage to define the extent of the right, that will be found so variant and embracing so much that has been overruled as to involve the whole subject in great uncertainty and to render the execution of our respective duties in relation to it replete with difficulty and embarrassment. It is in regard to such works and the acquisition of additional territory that the practice obtained its first footing. In most, if not all, other disputed questions of appropriation the construction of the Constitution may be regarded as unsettled if the right to apply money in the enumerated cases is placed on the ground of usage.

This subject has been one of much, and, I may add, painful, reflection to me. It has bearings that are well calculated to exert a powerful influence upon our hitherto prosperous system of government, and which, on some accounts, may even excite despondency in the breast of an American citizen. I will not detain you with professions of zeal in the cause of internal improvements. If to be their friend is a virtue which deserves commendation, our country is blessed with an abundance of it, for I do not suppose there is an intelligent citizen who does not wish to see them flourish. But though all are their friends, but few, I trust, are unmindful of the means by which they should be promoted; none certainly are so degenerate as to desire their success at the cost of that sacred instrument with the preservation of which is indissolubly bound our country's hopes. If different impressions are entertained in any quarter; if it is expected that the people of this country, reckless of their constitutional obligations, will prefer their local interest to the principles of the Union, such expectations will in the end be disappointed; or if it be not so, then indeed has the world but little to hope from the example of free government. When an honest observance of constitutional compacts can not be obtained from communities like ours, it need not be anticipated elsewhere, and the cause in which there has been so much martyrdom, and from which so much was expected by the friends of liberty, may be abandoned, and the degrading truth that man is unfit for self-government admitted. And this will be the case if expediency be made a rule of construction in interpreting the Constitution. Power in no government could desire a better shield for the insidious advances which it is ever ready to make upon the checks that are designed to restrain its action.

But I do not entertain such gloomy apprehensions. If it be the wish of the people that the construction of roads and canals should be conducted by the Federal Government, it is not only highly expedient, but indispensably necessary, that a previous amendment of the Constitution, delegating the necessary power and defining and restricting its exercise with reference to the sovereignty of the States, should be made. Without it nothing extensively useful can be effected. The right to exercise as much jurisdiction as is necessary to preserve the works and to raise funds by the collection of tolls to keep them in repair can not be dispensed with. The Cumberland road should be an instructive admonition of the consequences of acting without this right. Year after year contests are witnessed, growing out of efforts to obtain the necessary appropriations for completing and repairing this useful work. Whilst one Congress may claim and exercise the power, a succeeding one may deny it; and this fluctuation of opinion must be unavoidably fatal to any scheme which from its extent would promote the interests and elevate the character of the country. The experience of the past has shown that the opinion of Congress is subject to such fluctuations.

If it be the desire of the people that the agency of the Federal Government should be confined to the appropriation of money in aid of such undertakings, in virtue of State authorities, then the occasion, the manner, and the extent of the appropriations should be made the subject of constitutional regulation. This is the more necessary in order that they may be equitable among the several States, promote harmony between different sections of the Union and their representatives, preserve other parts of the Constitution from being undermined by the exercise of doubtful powers or the too great extension of those which are not so, and protect the whole subject against the deleterious influence of combinations to carry by concert measures which, considered by themselves, might meet but little countenance.

That a constitutional adjustment of this power upon equitable principles is in the highest degree desirable can scarcely be doubted, nor can it fail to be promoted by every sincere friend to the success of our political institutions. In no government are appeals to the source of power in cases of real doubt more suitable than in ours. No good motive can be assigned for the exercise of power by the constituted authorities, while those for whose benefit it is to be exercised have not conferred it and may not be willing to confer it. It would seem to me that an honest application of the conceded powers of the General Government to the advancement of the common weal present a sufficient scope to satisfy a reasonable ambition. The difficulty and supposed impracticability of obtaining an amendment of the Constitution in this respect is, I firmly believe, in a great degree unfounded. The time has never yet been when the patriotism and intelligence of the American people were not fully equal to the greatest exigency, and it never will when the subject calling forth their interposition is plainly presented to them. To do so with the questions involved in this bill, and to urge them to an early, zealous, and full consideration of their deep importance, is, in my estimation, among the highest of our duties.

A supposed connection between appropriations for internal improvement and the system of protecting duties, growing out of the anxieties of those more immediately interested in their success, has given rise to suggestions which it is proper I should notice on this occasion. My opinions on these subjects have never been concealed from those who had a right to know them. Those which I have entertained on the latter have frequently placed me in opposition to individuals as well as communities whose claims upon my friendship and gratitude are of the strongest character, but I trust there has been nothing in my public life which has exposed me to the suspicion of being thought capable of sacrificing my views of duty to private considerations, however strong they may have been or deep the regrets which they are capable of exciting.

As long as the encouragement of domestic manufactures is directed to national ends it shall receive from me a temperate but steady support. There is no necessary connection between it and the system of appropriations. On the contrary, it appears to me that the supposition of their dependence upon each other is calculated to excite the prejudices of the public against both. The former is sustained on the grounds of its consistency with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, of its origin being traced to the assent of all the parties to the original compact, and of its having the support and approbation of a majority of the people, on which account it is at least entitled to a fair experiment. The suggestions to which I have alluded refer to a forced continuance of the national debt by means of large appropriations as a substitute for the security which the system derives from the principles on which it has hitherto been sustained. Such a course would certainly indicate either an unreasonable distrust of the people or a consciousness that the system does not possess sufficient soundness for its support if left to their voluntary choice and its own merits. Those who suppose that any policy thus founded can be long upheld in this country have looked upon its history with eyes very different from mine. This policy, like every other, must abide the will of the people, who will not be likely to allow any device, however specious, to conceal its character and tendency.

In presenting these opinions I have spoken with the freedom and candor which I thought the occasion for their expression called for, and now respectfully return the bill which has been under consideration for your further deliberation and judgment.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, May 31, 1830. To the Senate of the United States.

GENTLEMEN: I have considered the bill proposing "to authorize a subscription of stock in the Washington Turnpike Road Company," and now return the same to the Senate, in which it originated.

I am unable to approve this bill, and would respectfully refer the Senate to my message to the House of Representatives on returning to that House the bill "to authorize a subscription of stock in the Maysville, Washington, Paris and Lexington Turnpike Road Company" for a statement of my objections to the bill herewith returned. The message referred to bears date on the 27th instant, and a printed copy of the same is herewith transmitted,

ANDREW JACKSON.

(NOTE.—For reasons for the pocket vetoes of "An act for making appropriations for building light-houses, light-boats, beacons, and monuments, placing buoys, and for improving harbors and directing surveys," and "An act to authorize a subscription for stock in the Louisville and Portland Canal Company," see Second Annual Message, dated December 6, 1830, p. 508.)



PROCLAMATIONS.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas it has been represented that many uninformed or evil-disposed persons have taken possession of or made a settlement on the public lands of the United States within the district of lands subject to sale at Huntsville, in the State of Alabama, which have not been previously sold, ceded, or leased by the United States, or the claim to which lands by such persons has not been previously recognized and confirmed by the United States, which possession or settlement is, by the act of Congress passed on the 3d day of March, 1807, expressly prohibited; and

Whereas the due execution of the said act of Congress, as well as the general interest, requires that such illegal practices should be promptly repressed:

Now, therefore, I, Andrew Jackson, President of the United States, have thought proper to issue this my proclamation, commanding and strictly enjoining all persons who have unlawfully taken possession of or made any settlement on, or who now unlawfully occupy, any of the public lands within the district of lands subject to sale at Huntsville, in the State of Alabama, as aforesaid, forthwith to remove therefrom; and I do hereby further command and enjoin the marshal, or officer acting as marshal, in that State, where such possession shall have been taken or settlement made, to remove, from and after the 1st day of September, 1830, all or any of the said unlawful occupants; and to effect the said service I do hereby authorize the employment of such military force as may become necessary in pursuance of the provisions of the act of Congress aforesaid, warning the offenders, moreover, that they will be prosecuted in all such other ways as the law directs.

In testimony whereof I have caused the seal of the United States of America to be affixed to these presents, and signed the same with my hand.

(SEAL.)

Done at the city of Washington, the 6th day of March, A.D. 1830, and of the Independence of the United States of America the fifty-fourth.

ANDREW JACKSON.

By the President: M. VAN BUREN, Secretary of State.

(From original in General Land Office.)

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

In pursuance of law, I, Andrew Jackson, President of the United States of America, do hereby declare and make known that public sales will be held at the under-mentioned land offices, in the State of Louisiana, at the periods designated, to wit:

At the land office at New Orleans on the first Monday in November next, for the disposal of such of the public lands within the limits of the under-mentioned fractional townships as are not covered by private land claims, viz:

Fractional townships 6, 7, and 9 south, of range 12 east; fractional townships 9 and 10 south, of range 13 east; fractional township 11 south, of range 15 east; fractional township 12 south, of range 16 east; fractional township 12 south, of ranges 20 and 21 east; fractional township 13 south, of range 21 east.

The above-described lands are adjacent to and binding on the Mississippi River.

At the land office at Ouachita, on the third Monday in November next, for the disposal of the public lands within the limits of the undermentioned townships and fractional townships, viz:

Fractional townships 3 and 4 north, of range 1 east; fractional townships 2 and 3 and townships 19 and 20 north, of range 2 east; fractional townships 2 and 3 and townships 7, 13, 14, 19, and 20 north, of range 3 east; fractional township 3 and townships 8, 9, 13, 14, and 19 north, of range 4 east; township 9 north, of ranges 5 and 6 east; township 10 north, of range 7 east; townships 10, 11, and 12 north, of range 8 east; also township 8 north, of range 9 east, and townships 8 and 9 north, of range 10 east, including the Lake St. John and part of Lake Concordia, near Natchez; township 21 and fractional township 22 north, of range 12 east; fractional townships 21, 22, and 23, of range 13 east, in the vicinity of Lake Providence; fractional township 4 north, of range 1 west; fractional townships 5 and 6 north, of range 2 west; fractional townships 5 and 6 and township 7 north, of range 3 west.

At the land office at St. Helena on the third Monday in November next, for the disposal of the public lands within the limits of the undermentioned townships and fractional townships, viz: