Speech Transcript:

Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives:

When we compare the condition of the country at the present day with
what it was one year ago at the meeting of Congress, we have much
reason for gratitude to that Almighty Providence which has never
failed to interpose for our relief at the most critical periods of
our history. One year ago the sectional strife between the North and
the South on the dangerous subject of slavery had again become so
intense as to threaten the peace and perpetuity of the Confederacy.
The application for the admission of Kansas as a State into the Union
fostered this unhappy agitation and brought the whole subject once
more before Congress. It was the desire of every patriot that such
measures of legislation might be adopted as would remove the
excitement from the States and confine it to the Territory where it
legitimately belonged. Much has been done, I am happy to say, toward
the accomplishment of this object during the last session of
Congress. The Supreme Court of the United States had previously
decided that all American citizens have an equal right to take into
the Territories whatever is held as property under the laws of any of
the States, and to hold such property there under the guardianship of
the Federal Constitution so long as the Territorial condition shall
remain.

This is now a well-established position, and the proceedings of the
last session were alone wanting to give it practical effect. The
principle has been recognized in some form or other by an almost
unanimous vote of both Houses of Congress that a Territory has a
right to come into the Union either as a free or a slave State,
according to the will of a majority of its people. The just equality
of all the States has thus been vindicated and a fruitful source of
dangerous dissension among them has been removed.

Whilst such has been the beneficial tendency of your legislative
proceedings outside of Kansas, their influence has nowhere been so
happy as within that Territory itself. Left to manage and control its
own affairs in its own way, without the pressure of external
influence, the revolutionary Topeka organization and all resistance
to the Territorial government established by Congress have been
finally abandoned. As a natural consequence that fine Territory now
appears to be tranquil and prosperous and is attracting increasing
thousands of immigrants to make it their happy home.

The past unfortunate experience of Kansas has enforced the lesson, so
often already taught, that resistance to lawful authority under our
form of government can not fail in the end to prove disastrous to its
authors. Had the people of the Territory yielded obedience to the laws
enacted by their legislature, it would at the present moment have
contained a large additional population of industrious and
enterprising citizens, who have been deterred from entering its
borders by the existence of civil strife and organized rebellion.

It was the resistance to rightful authority and the persevering
attempts to establish a revolutionary government under the Topeka
constitution which caused the people of Kansas to commit the grave
error of refusing to vote for delegates to the convention to frame a
constitution under a law not denied to be fair and just in its
provisions. This refusal to vote has been the prolific source of all
the evils which have followed, In their hostility to the Territorial
government they disregarded the principle, absolutely essential to
the working of our form of government, that a majority of those who
vote, not the majority who may remain at home, from whatever cause,
must decide the result of an election. For this reason, seeking to
take advantage of their own error, they denied the authority of the
convention thus elected to frame a constitution.

The convention, notwithstanding, proceeded to adopt a constitution
unexceptionable in its general features, and providing for the
submission of the slavery question to a vote of the people, which, in
my opinion, they were bound to do under the Kansas and Nebraska act.
This was the all-important question which had alone convulsed the
Territory; and yet the opponents of the lawful government, persisting
in their first error, refrained from exercising their right to vote,
and preferred that slavery should continue rather than surrender
their revolutionary Topeka organization.

A wiser and better spirit seemed to prevail before the first Monday
of January last, when an election was held under the constitution. A
majority of the people then voted for a governor and other State
officers, for a Member of Congress and members of the State
legislature. This election was warmly contested by the two political
parties in Kansas, and a greater vote was polled than at any previous
election. A large majority of the members of the legislature elect
belonged to that party which had previously refused to vote. The
antislavery party were thus placed in the ascendant, and the
political power of the State was in their own hands. Had Congress
admitted Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton constitution, the
legislature might at its very first session have submitted the
question to a vote of the people whether they would or would not have
a convention to amend their constitution, either on the slavery or any
other question, and have adopted all necessary means for giving speedy
effect to the will of the majority. Thus the Kansas question would
have been immediately and finally settled.

Under these circumstances I submitted to Congress the constitution
thus framed, with all the officers already elected necessary to put
the State government into operation, accompanied by a strong
recommendation in favor of the admission of Kansas as a State. In the
course of my long public life I have never performed any official act
which in the retrospect has afforded me more heartfelt satisfaction.
Its admission could have inflicted no possible injury on any human
being, whilst it would within a brief period have restored peace to
Kansas and harmony to the Union. In that event the slavery question
would ere this have been finally settled according to the legally
expressed will of a majority of the voters, and popular sovereignty
would thus have been vindicated in a constitutional manner.

With my deep convictions of duty I could have pursued no other
course. It is true that as an individual I had expressed an opinion,
both before and during the session of the convention, in favor of
submitting the remaining clauses of the constitution, as well as that
concerning slavery, to the people. But, acting in an official
character, neither myself nor any human authority had the power to
rejudge the proceedings of the convention and declare the
constitution which it had framed to be a nullity. To have done this
would have been a violation of the Kansas and Nebraska act, which
left the people of the Territory "perfectly free to form and regulate
their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the
Constitution of the United States." It would equally have violated
the great principle of popular sovereignty, at the foundation of our
institutions, to deprive the people of the power, if they thought
proper to exercise it, of confiding to delegates elected by
themselves the trust of framing a constitution without requiring them
to subject their constituents to the trouble, expense, and delay of a
second election. It would have been in opposition to many precedents
in our history, commencing in the very best age of the Republic, of
the admission of Territories as States into the Union without a
previous vote of the people approving their constitution.

It is to be lamented that a question so insignificant when viewed in
its practical effects on the people of Kansas, whether decided one
way or the other, should have kindled such a flame of excitement
throughout the country. This reflection may prove to be a lesson of
wisdom and of warning for our future guidance. Practically
considered, the question is simply whether the people of that
Territory should first come into the Union and then change any
provision in their constitution not agreeable to themselves, or
accomplish the very same object by remaining out of the Union and
framing another constitution in accordance with their will. In either
case the result would be precisely the same. The only difference, in
point of fact, is that the object would have been much sooner
attained and the pacification of Kansas more speedily effected had it
been admitted as a State during the last session of Congress.

My recommendation, however, for the immediate admission of Kansas
failed to meet the approbation of Congress. They deemed it wiser to
adopt a different measure for the settlement of the question. For my
own part, I should have been willing to yield my assent to almost any
constitutional measure to accomplish this object. I therefore
cordially acquiesced in what has been called the English compromise
and approved the "act for the admission of the State of Kansas into
the Union" upon the terms therein prescribed.

Under the ordinance which accompanied the Lecompton constitution the
people of Kansas had claimed double the quantity of public lands for
the support of common schools which had ever been previously granted
to any State upon entering the Union, and also the alternate sections
of land for 12 miles on each side of two railroads proposed to be
constructed from the northern to the southern boundary and from the
eastern to the western boundary of the State. Congress, deeming these
claims unreasonable, provided by the act of May 4, 1858, to which I
have just referred, for the admission of the State on an equal
footing with the original States, but "upon the fundamental condition
precedent" that a majority of the people thereof, at an election to be
held for that purpose, should, in place of the very large grants of
public lands which they had demanded under the ordinance, accept such
grants as had been made to Minnesota and other new States. Under this
act, should a majority reject the proposition offered them, "it shall
be deemed and held that the people of Kansas do not desire admission
into the Union with said constitution under the conditions set forth
in said proposition." In that event the act authorizes the people of
the Territory to elect delegates to form a constitution and State
government for themselves "whenever, and not before, it is
ascertained by a census, duly and legally taken, that the population
of said Territory equals or exceeds the ratio of representation
required for a member of the House of Representatives of the Congress
of the United States." The delegates thus assembled "shall first
determine by a vote whether it is the wish of the people of the
proposed State to be admitted into the Union at that time, and, if
so, shall proceed to form a constitution and take all necessary steps
for the establishment of a State government in conformity with the
Federal Constitution." After this constitution shall have been
formed, Congress, carrying out the principles of popular sovereignty
and nonintervention, have left "the mode and manner of its approval
or ratification by the people of the proposed State" to be
"prescribed by law," and they "shall then be admitted into the Union
as a State under such constitution, thus fairly and legally made,
with or without slavery, as said constitution may prescribe."

An election was held throughout Kansas, in pursuance of the
provisions of this act, on the 2d day of August last, and it resulted
in the rejection by a large majority of the proposition submitted to
the people by Congress. This being the case, they are now authorized
to form another constitution, preparatory to admission into the
Union, but not until their number, as ascertained by a census, shall
equal or exceed the ratio required to elect a member to the House of
Representatives.

It is not probable, in the present state of the case, that a third
constitution can be lawfully framed and presented to Congress by
Kansas before its population shall have reached the designated
number. Nor is it to be presumed that after their sad experience in
resisting the Territorial laws they will attempt to adopt a
constitution in express violation of the provisions of an act of
Congress. During the session of 1856 much of the time of Congress was
occupied on the question of admitting Kansas under the Topeka
constitution. Again, nearly the whole of the last session was devoted
to the question of its admission under the Lecompton constitution.
Surely it is not unreasonable to require the people of Kansas to wait
before making a third attempt until the number of their inhabitants
shall amount to 93,420. During this brief period the harmony of the
States as well as the great business interests of the country demand
that the people of the Union shall not for a third time be convulsed
by another agitation on the Kansas question. By waiting for a short
time and acting in obedience to law Kansas will glide into the Union
without the slightest impediment.

This excellent provision, which Congress have applied to Kansas,
ought to be extended and rendered applicable to all Territories which
may hereafter seek admission into the Union.

Whilst Congress possess the undoubted power of admitting a new State
into the Union, however small may be the number of its inhabitants,
yet this power ought not, in my opinion, to be exercised before the
population shall amount to the ratio required by the act for the
admission of Kansas. Had this been previously the rule, the country
would have escaped all the evils and misfortunes to which it has been
exposed by the Kansas question.

Of course it would be unjust to give this rule a retrospective
application, and exclude a State which, acting upon the past practice
of the Government, has already formed its constitution, elected its
legislature and other officers, and is now prepared to enter the
Union. The rule ought to be adopted, whether we consider its bearing
on the people of the Territories or upon the people of the existing
States. Many of the serious dissentions which have prevailed in
Congress and throughout the country would have been avoided had this
rule been established at an earlier period of the Government.

Immediately upon the formation of a new Territory people from
different States and from foreign countries rush into it for the
laudable purpose of improving their condition. Their first duty to
themselves is to open and cultivate farms, to construct roads, to
establish schools, to erect places of religious worship, and to
devote their energies generally to reclaim the wilderness and to lay
the foundations of a flourishing and prosperous commonwealth. If in
this incipient condition, with a population of a few thousand, they
should prematurely enter the Union, they are oppressed by the burden
of State taxation, and the means necessary for the improvement of the
Territory and the advancement of their own interests are thus diverted
to very different purposes.

The Federal Government has ever been a liberal parent to the
Territories and a generous contributor to the useful enterprises of
the early settlers. It has paid the expenses of their governments and
legislative assemblies out of the common Treasury, and thus relieved
them from a heavy charge. Under these circumstances nothing can be
better calculated to retard their material progress than to divert
them from their useful employments by prematurely exciting angry
political contests among themselves for the benefit of aspiring
leaders. It is surely no hardship for embryo governors, Senators, and
Members of Congress to wait until the number of inhabitants shall
equal those of a single Congressional district. They surely ought not
to be permitted to rush into the Union with a population less than
one-half of several of the large counties in the interior of some of
the States. This was the condition of Kansas when it made application
to be admitted under the Topeka constitution. Besides, it requires
some time to render the mass of a population collected in a new
Territory at all homogeneous and to unite them on anything like a
fixed policy. Establish the rule, and all will look forward to it and
govern themselves accordingly. But justice to the people of the
several States requires that this rule should be established by
Congress. Each State is entitled to two Senators and at least one
Representative in Congress. Should the people of the States fail to
elect a Vice-President, the power devolves upon the Senate to select
this officer from the two highest candidates on the list. In case of
the death of the President, the Vice-President thus elected by the
Senate becomes President of the United States. On all questions of
legislation the Senators from the smallest States of the Union have
an equal vote with those from the largest. The same may be said in
regard to the ratification of treaties and of Executive appointments.
All this has worked admirably in practice, whilst it conforms in
principle with the character of a Government instituted by sovereign
States. I presume no American citizen would desire the slightest
change in the arrangement. Still, is it not unjust and unequal to the
existing States to invest some 40,000 or 50,000 people collected in a
Territory with the attributes of sovereignty and place them on an
equal footing with Virginia and New York in the Senate of the United
States?

For these reasons I earnestly recommend the passage of a general act
which shall provide that, upon the application of a Territorial
legislature declaring their belief that the Territory contains a
number of inhabitants which, if in a State, would entitle them to
elect a Member of Congress, it shall be the duty of the President to
cause a census of the inhabitants to be taken, and if found
sufficient then by the terms of this act to authorize them to proceed
"in their own way" to frame a State constitution preparatory to
admission into the Union. I also recommend that an appropriation may
be made to enable the President to take a census of the people of
Kansas.

The present condition of the Territory of Utah, when contrasted with
what it was one year ago, is a subject for congratulation. It was
then in a state of open rebellion, and, cost what it might, the
character of the Government required that this rebellion should be
suppressed and the Mormons compelled to yield obedience to the
Constitution and the laws. In order to accomplish this object, as I
informed you in my last annual message, I appointed a new governor
instead of Brigham Young, and other Federal officers to take the
place of those who, consulting their personal safety, had found it
necessary to withdraw from the Territory.

To protect these civil officers, and to aid them, as a posse
comitatus, in the execution of the laws in case of need, I ordered a
detachment of the Army to accompany them to Utah. The necessity for
adopting these measures is now demonstrated.

On the 15th of September, 1857, Governor Young issued his
proclamation, in the style of an independent sovereign, announcing
his purpose to resist by force of arms the entry of the United States
troops into our own Territory of Utah. By this he required all the
forces in the Territory to "hold themselves in readiness to march at
a moment's notice to repel any and all such invasion," and
established martial law from its date throughout the Territory. These
proved to be no idle threats. Forts Bridger and Supply were vacated
and burnt down by the Mormons to deprive our troops of a shelter
after their long and fatiguing march. Orders were issued by Daniel H.
Wells, styling himself "Lieutenant General, Nauvoo Legion," to
stampede the animals of the United States troops on their march, to
set fire to their trains, to burn the grass and the whole country
before them and on their flanks, to keep them from sleeping by night
surprises, and to blockade the road by felling trees and destroying
the fords of rivers, etc.

These orders were promptly and effectually obeyed. On the 4th of
October, 1857, the Mormons captured and burned, on Green River, three
of our supply trains, consisting of seventy-five wagons loaded with
provisions and tents for the army, and carried away several hundred
animals. This diminished the supply of provisions so materially that
General Johnston was obliged to reduce the ration, and even with this
precaution there was only sufficient left to subsist the troops until
the 1st of June.

Our little army behaved admirably in their encampment at Fort Bridger
under these trying privations. In the midst of the mountains, in a
dreary, unsettled, and inhospitable region, more than a thousand
miles from home, they passed the severe and inclement winter without
a murmur. They looked forward with confidence for relief from their
country in due season, and in this they were not disappointed. The
Secretary of War employed all his energies to forward them the
necessary supplies and to muster and send such a military force to
Utah as would render resistance on the part of the Mormons hopeless,
and thus terminate the war without the effusion of blood. In his
efforts he was efficiently sustained by Congress. They granted
appropriations sufficient to cover the deficiency thus necessarily
created, and also provided for raising two regiments of volunteers
"for the purpose of quelling disturbances in the Territory of Utah,
for the protection of supply and emigrant trains, and the suppression
of Indian hostilities on the frontiers." Happily, there was no
occasion to call these regiments into service. If there had been, I
should have felt serious embarrassment in selecting them, so great
was the number of our brave and patriotic citizens anxious to serve
their country in this distant and apparently dangerous expedition.
Thus it has ever been, and thus may it ever be.

The wisdom and economy of sending sufficient reenforcements to Utah
are established, not only by the event, but in the opinion of those
who from their position and opportunities are the most capable of
forming a correct judgment. General Johnston, the commander of the
forces, in addressing the Secretary of War from Fort Bridger under
date of October 18, 1857, expresses the opinion that "unless a large
force is sent here, from the nature of the country a protracted war
on their [the Mormons's] part is inevitable." This he considered
necessary to terminate the war "speedily and more economically than
if attempted by insufficient means."

In the meantime it was my anxious desire that the Mormons should
yield obedience to the Constitution and the laws without rendering it
necessary to resort to military force. To aid in accomplishing this
object, I deemed it advisable in April last to dispatch two
distinguished citizens of the United States, Messrs. Powell and
McCulloch, to Utah. They bore with them a proclamation addressed by
myself to the inhabitants of Utah, dated on the 6th day of that
month, warning them of their true condition and how hopeless it was
on their part to persist in rebellion against the United States, and
offering all those who should submit to the laws a full pardon for
their past seditions and treasons. At the same time I assured those
who should persist in rebellion against the United States that they
must expect no further lenity, but look to be rigorously dealt with
according to their deserts. The instructions to these agents, as well
as a copy of the proclamation and their reports, are herewith
submitted. It will be seen by their report of the 3d of July last
that they have fully confirmed the opinion expressed by General
Johnston in the previous October as to the necessity of sending
reenforcements to Utah. In this they state that they "are firmly
impressed with the belief that the presence of the Army here and the
large additional force that had been ordered to this Territory were
the chief inducements that caused the Mormons to abandon the idea of
resisting the authority of the United States. A less decisive policy
would probably have resulted in a long, bloody, and expensive war."

These gentlemen conducted themselves to my entire satisfaction and
rendered useful services in executing the humane intentions of the
Government.

It also affords me great satisfaction to state that Governor Cumming
has performed his duty in an able and conciliatory manner and with
the happiest effect. I can not in this connection refrain from
mentioning the valuable services of Colonel Thomas L. Kane, who, from
motives of pure benevolence and without any official character or
pecuniary compensation, visited Utah during the last inclement winter
for the purpose of contributing to the pacification of the Territory.

I am happy to inform you that the governor and other civil officers
of Utah are now performing their appropriate functions without
resistance. The authority of the Constitution and the laws has been
fully restored and peace prevails throughout the Territory. A portion
of the troops sent to Utah are now encamped in Cedar Valley, 44 miles
southwest of Salt Lake City, and the remainder have been ordered to
Oregon to suppress Indian hostilities.

The march of the army to Salt Lake City through the Indian Territory
has had a powerful effect in restraining the hostile feelings against
the United States which existed among the Indians in that region and
in securing emigrants to the far West against their depredations.
This will also be the means of establishing military posts and
promoting settlements along the route. I recommend that the benefits
of our land laws and preemption system be extended to the people of
Utah by the establishment of a land office in that Territory.

I have occasion also to congratulate you on the result of our
negotiations with China.

You were informed by my last annual message that our minister had
been instructed to occupy a neutral position in the hostilities
conducted by Great Britain and France against Canton. He was,
however, at the same time directed to cooperate cordially with the
British and French ministers in all peaceful measures to secure by
treaty those just concessions to foreign commerce which the nations
of the world had a right to demand. It was impossible for me to
proceed further than this on my own authority without usurping the
war-making power, which under the Constitution belongs exclusively to
Congress.

Besides, after a careful examination of the nature and extent of our
grievances, I did not believe they were of such a pressing and
aggravated character as would have justified Congress in declaring
war against the Chinese Empire without first making another earnest
attempt to adjust them by peaceful negotiation. I was the more
inclined to this opinion because of the severe chastisement which had
then but recently been inflicted upon the Chinese by our squadron in
the capture and destruction of the Barrier forts to avenge an alleged
insult to our flag. The event has proved the wisdom of our neutrality.
Our minister has executed his instructions with eminent skill and
ability. In conjunction with the Russian plenipotentiary, he has
peacefully, but effectually, cooperated with the English and French
plenipotentiaries, and each of the four powers has concluded a
separate treaty with China of a highly satisfactory character. The
treaty concluded by our own plenipotentiary will immediately be
submitted to the Senate.

I am happy to announce that through the energetic yet conciliatory
efforts of our consul-general in Japan a new treaty has been
concluded with that Empire, which may be expected materially to
augment our trade and intercourse in that quarter and remove from our
countrymen the disabilities which have heretofore been imposed upon
the exercise of their religion. The treaty shall be submitted to the
Senate for approval without delay.

It is my earnest desire that every misunderstanding with the
Government of Great Britain should be amicably and speedily adjusted.
It has been the misfortune of both countries, almost ever since the
period of the Revolution, to have been annoyed by a succession of
irritating and dangerous questions, threatening their friendly
relations. This has partially prevented the full development of those
feelings of mutual friendship between the people of the two countries
so natural in themselves and so conducive to their common interest.
Any serious interruption of the commerce between the United States
and Great Britain would be equally injurious to both. In fact, no two
nations have ever existed on the face of the earth which could do each
other so much good or so much harm.

Entertaining these sentiments, I am gratified to inform you that the
long-pending controversy between the two Governments in relation to
the question of visitation and search has been amicably adjusted. The
claim on the part of Great Britain forcibly to visit American vessels
on the high seas in time of peace could not be sustained under the
law of nations, and it had been overruled by her own most eminent
jurists. This question was recently brought to an issue by the
repeated acts of British cruisers in boarding and searching our
merchant vessels in the Gulf of Mexico and the adjacent seas. These
acts were the more injurious and annoying, as these waters are
traversed by a large portion of the commerce and navigation of the
United States and their free and unrestricted use is essential to the
security of the coastwise trade between the different States of the
Union. Such vexatious interruptions could not fail to excite the
feelings of the country and to require the interposition of the
Government. Remonstrances were addressed to the British Government
against these violations of our rights of sovereignty, and a naval
force was at the same time ordered to the Cuban waters with
directions "to protect all vessels of the United States on the high
seas from search or detention by the vessels of war of any other
nation." These measures received the unqualified and even
enthusiastic approbation of the American people. Most fortunately,
however, no collision took place, and the British Government promptly
avowed its recognition of the principles of international law upon
this subject as laid down by the Government of the United States in
the note of the Secretary of State to the British minister at
Washington of April 10, 1858, which secure the vessels of the United
States upon the high seas from visitation or search in time of peace
under any circumstances whatever. The claim has been abandoned in a
manner reflecting honor on the British Government and evincing a just
regard for the law of nations, and can not fail to strengthen the
amicable relations between the two countries.

The British Government at the same time proposed to the United States
that some mode should be adopted, by mutual arrangement between the
two countries, of a character which may be found effective without
being offensive, for verifying the nationality of vessels suspected
on good grounds of carrying false colors. They have also invited the
United States to take the initiative and propose measures for this
purpose. Whilst declining to assume so grave a responsibility, the
Secretary of State has informed the British Government that we are
ready to receive any proposals which they may feel disposed to offer
having this object in view, and to consider them in an amicable
spirit. A strong opinion is, however, expressed that the occasional
abuse of the flag of any nation is an evil far less to be deprecated
than would be the establishment of any regulations which might be
incompatible with the freedom of the seas. This Government has yet
received no communication specifying the manner in which the British
Government would propose to carry out their suggestion, and I am
inclined to believe that no plan which can be devised will be free
from grave embarrassments. Still, I shall form no decided opinion on
the subject until I shall have carefully and in the best spirit
examined any proposals which they may think proper to make.

I am truly sorry I can not also inform you that the complications
between Great Britain and the United States arising out of the
Clayton and Bulwer treaty of April, 1850, have been finally
adjusted.

At the commencement of your last session I had reason to hope that,
emancipating themselves from further unavailing discussions, the two
Governments would proceed to settle the Central American questions in
a practical manner, alike honorable and satisfactory to both; and this
hope I have not yet abandoned. In my last annual message I stated that
overtures had been made by the British Government for this purpose in
a friendly spirit, which I cordially reciprocated. Their proposal was
to withdraw these questions from direct negotiation between the two
Governments, but to accomplish the same object by a negotiation
between the British Government and each of the Central American
Republics whose territorial interests are immediately involved. The
settlement was to be made in accordance with the general tenor of the
interpretation placed upon the Clayton and Bulwer treaty by the United
States, with certain modifications. As negotiations are still pending
upon this basis, it would not be proper for me now to communicate
their present condition. A final settlement of these questions is
greatly to be desired, as this would wipe out the last remaining
subject of dispute between the two countries.

Our relations with the great Empires of France and Russia, as well as
with all other Governments on the continent of Europe, except that of
Spain, continue to be of the most friendly character.

With Spain our relations remain in an unsatisfactory condition. In my
message of December last I informed you that our envoy extraordinary
and minister plenipotentiary to Madrid had asked for his recall, and
it was my purpose to send out a new minister to that Court with
special instructions on all questions pending between the two
Governments, and with a determination to have them speedily and
amicably adjusted if that were possible. This purpose has been
hitherto defeated by causes which I need not enumerate. The mission
to Spain has been intrusted to a distinguished citizen of Kentucky,
who will proceed to Madrid without delay and make another and a final
attempt to obtain justice from that Government.

Spanish officials under the direct control of the Captain-General of
Cuba have insulted our national flag and in repeated instances have
from time to time inflicted injuries on the persons and property of
our citizens. These have given birth to numerous claims against the
Spanish Government, the merits of which have been ably discussed for
a series of years by our successive diplomatic representatives.
Notwithstanding this, we have not arrived at a practical result in
any single instance, unless we may except the case of the Black
Warrior, under the late Administration, and that presented an outrage
of such a character as would have justified an immediate resort to
war. All our attempts to obtain redress have been baffled and
defeated. The frequent and oft-recurring changes in the Spanish
ministry have been employed as reasons for delay. We have been
compelled to wait again and again until the new minister shall have
had time to investigate the justice of our demands.

Even what have been denominated "the Cuban claims," in which more
than 100 of our citizens are directly interested, have furnished no
exception. These claims were for the refunding of duties unjustly
exacted from American vessels at different custom-houses in Cuba so
long ago as the year 1844. The principles upon which they rest are so
manifestly equitable and just that, after a period of nearly ten
years, in 1854 they were recognized by the Spanish Government.
Proceedings were afterwards instituted to ascertain their amount, and
this was finally fixed, according to their own statement (with which
we were satisfied), at the sum of $128,635.54. Just at the moment,
after a delay of fourteen years, when we had reason to expect that
this sum would be repaid with interest, we have received a proposal
offering to refund one-third of that amount ($42,878.41), but without
interest, if we would accept this in full satisfaction. The offer is
also accompanied by a declaration that this indemnification is not
founded on any reason of strict justice, but is made as a special
favor.

One alleged cause for procrastination in the examination and
adjustment of our claims arises from an obstacle which it is the duty
of the Spanish Government to remove. Whilst the Captain-General of
Cuba is invested with general despotic authority in the government of
that island, the power is withheld from him to examine and redress
wrongs committed by officials under his control on citizens of the
United States. Instead of making our complaints directly to him at
Havana, we are obliged to present them through our minister at
Madrid. These are then referred back to the Captain-General for
information, and much time is thus consumed in preliminary
investigations and correspondence between Madrid and Cuba before the
Spanish Government will consent to proceed to negotiation. Many of
the difficulties between the two Governments would be obviated and a
long train of negotiation avoided if the Captain-General were
invested with authority to settle questions of easy solution on the
spot, where all the facts are fresh and could be promptly and
satisfactorily ascertained. We have hitherto in vain urged upon the
Spanish Government to confer this power upon the Captain-General, and
our minister to Spain will again be instructed to urge this subject on
their notice. In this respect we occupy a different position from the
powers of Europe. Cuba is almost within sight of our shores; our
commerce with it is far greater than that of any other nation,
including Spain itself, and our citizens are in habits of daily and
extended personal intercourse with every part of the island. It is
therefore a great grievance that when any difficulty occurs, no
matter how unimportant, which might be readily settled at the moment,
we should be obliged to resort to Madrid, especially when the very
first step to be taken there is to refer it back to Cuba.

The truth is that Cuba, in its existing colonial condition, is a
constant source of injury and annoyance to the American people. It is
the only spot in the civilized world where the African slave trade is
tolerated, and we are bound by treaty with Great Britain to maintain
a naval force on the coast of Africa, at much expense both of life
and treasure, solely for the purpose of arresting slavers bound to
that island. The late serious difficulties between the United States
and Great Britain respecting the right of search, now so happily
terminated, could never have arisen if Cuba had not afforded a market
for slaves. As long as this market shall remain open there can be no
hope for the civilization of benighted Africa. Whilst the demand for
slaves continues in Cuba wars will be waged among the petty and
barbarous chiefs in Africa for the purpose of seizing subjects to
supply this trade. In such a condition of affairs it is impossible
that the light of civilization and religion can ever penetrate these
dark abodes.

It has been made known to the world by my predecessors that the
United States have on several occasions endeavored to acquire Cuba
from Spain by honorable negotiation. If this were accomplished, the
last relic of the African slave trade would instantly disappear. We
would not, if we could, acquire Cuba in any other manner. This is due
to our national character. All the territory which we have acquired
since the origin of the Government has been by fair purchase from
France, Spain, and Mexico or by the free and voluntary act of the
independent State of Texas in blending her destinies with our own.
This course we shall ever pursue, unless circumstances should occur
which we do not now anticipate, rendering a departure from it clearly
justifiable under the imperative and overruling law of
self-preservation. The island of Cuba, from its geographical
position, commands the mouth of the Mississippi and the immense and
annually increasing trade, foreign and coastwise, from the valley of
that noble river, now embracing half the sovereign States of the
Union. With that island under the dominion of a distant foreign power
this trade, of vital importance to these States, is exposed to the
danger of being destroyed in time of war, and it has hitherto been
subjected to perpetual injury and annoyance in time of peace. Our
relations with Spain, which ought to be of the most friendly
character, must always be placed in jeopardy whilst the existing
colonial government over the island shall remain in its present
condition.

Whilst the possession of the island would be of vast importance to
the United States, its value to Spain is comparatively unimportant.
Such was the relative situation of the parties when the great
Napoleon transferred Louisiana to the United States. Jealous as he
ever was of the national honor and interests of France, no person
throughout the world has imputed blame to him for accepting a
pecuniary equivalent for this cession.

The publicity which has been given to our former negotiations upon
this subject and the large appropriation which may be required to
effect the purpose render it expedient before making another attempt
to renew the negotiation that I should lay the whole subject before
Congress. This is especially necessary, as it may become
indispensable to success that I should be intrusted with the means of
making an advance to the Spanish Government immediately after the
signing of the treaty, without awaiting the ratification of it by the
Senate. I am encouraged to make this suggestion by the example of Mr.
Jefferson previous to the purchase of Louisiana from France and by
that of Mr. Polk in view of the acquisition of territory from Mexico.
I refer the whole subject to Congress and commend it to their careful
consideration.

I repeat the recommendation made in my message of December last in
favor of an appropriation "to be paid to the Spanish Government for
the purpose of distribution among the claimants in the Amistad case."
President Polk first made a similar recommendation in December, 1847,
and it was repeated by my immediate predecessor in December, 1853. I
entertain no doubt that indemnity is fairly due to these claimants
under our treaty with Spain of October 27, 1795; and whilst demanding
justice we ought to do justice. An appropriation promptly made for
this purpose could not fail to exert a favorable influence on our
negotiations with Spain.

Our position in relation to the independent States south of us on
this continent, and especially those within the limits of North
America, is of a peculiar character. The northern boundary of Mexico
is coincident with our own southern boundary from ocean to ocean, and
we must necessarily feel a deep interest in all that concerns the
well-being and the fate of so near a neighbor. We have always
cherished the kindest wishes for the success of that Republic, and
have indulged the hope that it might at last, after all its trials,
enjoy peace and prosperity under a free and stable government. We
have never hitherto interfered, directly or indirectly, with its
internal affairs, and it is a duty which we owe to ourselves to
protect the integrity of its territory against the hostile
interference of any other power. Our geographical position, our
direct interest in all that concerns Mexico, and our well-settled
policy in regard to the North American continent render this an
indispensable duty.

Mexico has been in a state of constant revolution almost ever since
it achieved its independence. One military leader after another has
usurped the Government in rapid succession, and the various
constitutions from time to time adopted have been set at naught
almost as soon as they were proclaimed. The successive Governments
have afforded no adequate protection, either to Mexican citizens or
foreign residents, against lawless violence. Heretofore a seizure of
the capital by a military chieftain has been generally followed by at
least the nominal submission of the country to his rule for a brief
period, but not so at the present crisis of Mexican affairs. A civil
war has been raging for some time throughout the Republic between the
central Government at the City of Mexico, which has endeavored to
subvert the constitution last framed by military power, and those who
maintain the authority of that constitution. The antagonist parties
each hold possession of different States of the Republic, and the
fortunes of the war are constantly changing. Meanwhile the most
reprehensible means have been employed by both parties to extort
money from foreigners, as well as natives, to carry on this ruinous
contest. The truth is that this fine country, blessed with a
productive soil and a benign climate, has been reduced by civil
dissension to a condition of almost hopeless anarchy and imbecility.
It would be vain for this Government to attempt to enforce payment in
money of the claims of American citizens, now amounting to more than
$10,000,000, against Mexico, because she is destitute of all
pecuniary means to satisfy these demands.

Our late minister was furnished with ample powers and instructions
for the adjustment of all pending questions with the central
Government of Mexico, and he performed his duty with zeal and
ability. The claims of our citizens, some of them arising out of the
violation of an express provision of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo,
and others from gross injuries to persons as well as property, have
remained unredressed and even unnoticed. Remonstrances against these
grievances have been addressed without effect to that Government.
Meantime in various parts of the Republic instances have been
numerous of the murder, imprisonment, and plunder of our citizens by
different parties claiming and exercising a local jurisdiction; but
the central Government, although repeatedly urged thereto, have made
no effort either to punish the authors of these outrages or to
prevent their recurrence. No American citizen can now visit Mexico on
lawful business without imminent danger to his person and property.
There is no adequate protection to either, and in this respect our
treaty with that Republic is almost a dead letter.

This state of affairs was brought to a crisis in May last by the
promulgation of a decree levying a contribution pro rata upon all the
capital in the Republic between certain specified amounts, whether
held by Mexicans or foreigners. Mr. Forsyth, regarding this decree in
the light of a "forced loan," formally protested against its
application to his countrymen and advised them not to pay the
contribution, but to suffer it to be forcibly exacted. Acting upon
this advice, an American citizen refused to pay the contribution, and
his property was seized by armed men to satisfy the amount. Not
content with this, the Government proceeded still further and issued
a decree banishing him from the country. Our minister immediately
notified them that if this decree should be carried into execution he
would feel it to be his duty to adopt "the most decided measures that
belong to the powers and obligations of the representative office."
Notwithstanding this warning, the banishment was enforced, and Mr.
Forsyth promptly announced to the Government the suspension of the
political relations of his legation with them until the pleasure of
his own Government should be ascertained.

This Government did not regard the contribution imposed by the decree
of the 15th May last to be in strictness a "forced loan," and as such
prohibited by the tenth article of the treaty of 1826 between Great
Britain and Mexico, to the benefits of which American citizens are
entitled by treaty; yet the imposition of the contribution upon
foreigners was considered an unjust and oppressive measure. Besides,
internal factions in other parts of the Republic were at the same
time levying similar exactions upon the property of our citizens and
interrupting their commerce. There had been an entire failure on the
part of our minister to secure redress for the wrongs which our
citizens had endured, notwithstanding his persevering efforts. And
from the temper manifested by the Mexican Government he had
repeatedly assured us that no favorable change could be expected
until the United States should "give striking evidence of their will
and power to protect their citizens," and that "severe chastening is
the only earthly remedy for our grievances." From this statement of
facts it would have been worse than idle to direct Mr. Forsyth to
retrace his steps and resume diplomatic relations with that
Government, and it was therefore deemed proper to sanction his
withdrawal of the legation from the City of Mexico.

Abundant cause now undoubtedly exists for a resort to hostilities
against the Government still holding possession of the capital.
Should they succeed in subduing the constitutional forces, all
reasonable hope will then have expired of a peaceful settlement of
our difficulties. On the other hand, should the constitutional party
prevail and their authority be established over the Republic, there
is reason to hope that they will be animated by a less unfriendly
spirit and may grant that redress to American citizens which justice
requires so far as they may possess the means. But for this
expectation I should at once have recommended to Congress to grant
the necessary power to the President to take possession of a
sufficient portion of the remote and unsettled territory of Mexico,
to be held in pledge until our injuries shall be redressed and our
just demands be satisfied. We have already exhausted every milder
means of obtaining justice. In such a case this remedy of reprisals
is recognized by the law of nations, not only as just in itself, but
as a means of preventing actual war.

But there is another view of our relations with Mexico, arising from
the unhappy condition of affairs along our southwestern frontier,
which demands immediate action. In that remote region, where there
are but few white inhabitants, large bands of hostile and predatory
Indians roam promiscuously over the Mexican States of Chihuahua and
Sonora and our adjoining Territories. The local governments of these
States are perfectly helpless and are kept in a state of constant
alarm by the Indians. They have not the power, if they possessed the
will, even to restrain lawless Mexicans from passing the border and
committing depredations on our remote settlers. A state of anarchy
and violence prevails throughout that distant frontier. The laws are
a dead letter and life and property wholly insecure. For this reason
the settlement of Arizona is arrested, whilst it is of great
importance that a chain of inhabitants should extend all along its
southern border sufficient for their own protection and that of the
United States mail passing to and from California. Well-founded
apprehensions are now entertained that the Indians and wandering
Mexicans, equally lawless, may break up the important stage and
postal communication recently established between our Atlantic and
Pacific possessions. This passes very near to the Mexican boundary
throughout the whole length of Arizona. I can imagine no possible
remedy for these evils and no mode of restoring law and order on that
remote and unsettled frontier but for the Government of the United
States to assume a temporary protectorate over the northern portions
of Chihuahua and Sonora and to establish military posts within the
same; and this I earnestly recommend to Congress. This protection may
be withdrawn as soon as local governments shall be established in
these Mexican States capable of performing their duties to the United
States, restraining the lawless, and preserving peace along the
border.

I do not doubt that this measure will be viewed in a friendly spirit
by the governments and people of Chihuahua and Sonora, as it will
prove equally effectual for the protection of their citizens on that
remote and lawless frontier as for citizens of the United States. And
in this connection permit me to recall your attention to the condition
of Arizona. The population of that Territory, numbering, as is
alleged, more than 10,000 souls, are practically without a
government, without laws, and without any regular administration of
justice. Murder and other crimes are committed with impunity. This
state of things calls loudly for redress, and I therefore repeat my
recommendation for the establishment of a Territorial government over
Arizona.

The political condition of the narrow isthmus of Central America,
through which transit routes pass between the Atlantic and Pacific
oceans, presents a subject of deep interest to all commercial
nations. It is over these transits that a large proportion of the
trade and travel between the European and Asiatic continents is
destined to pass. To the United States these routes are of
incalculable importance as a means of communication between their
Atlantic and Pacific possessions. The latter now extend throughout
seventeen degrees of latitude on the Pacific coast, embracing the
important State of California and the flourishing territories of
Oregon and Washington. All commercial nations therefore have a deep
and direct interest that these communications shall be rendered
secure from interruption. If an arm of the sea connecting the two
oceans penetrated through Nicaragua and Costa Rica, it could not be
pretended that these States would have the right to arrest or retard
its navigation to the injury of other nations. The transit by land
over this narrow isthmus occupies nearly the same position. It is a
highway in which they themselves have little interest when compared
with the vast interests of the rest of the world. Whilst their rights
of sovereignty ought to be respected, it is the duty of other nations
to require that this important passage shall not be interrupted by
the civil wars and revolutionary outbreaks which have so frequently
occurred in that region. The stake is too important to be left at the
mercy of rival companies claiming to hold conflicting contracts with
Nicaragua. The commerce of other nations is not to stand still and
await the adjustment of such petty controversies. The Government of
the United States expect no more than this, and they will not be
satisfied with less. They would not, if they could, derive any
advantage from the Nicaragua transit not common to the rest of the
World. Its neutrality and protection for the common use of all
nations is their only object. They have no objection that Nicaragua
shall demand and receive a fair compensation from the companies and
individuals who may traverse the route, but they insist that it shall
never hereafter be closed by an arbitrary decree of that Government.
If disputes arise between it and those with whom they may have
entered into contracts, these must be adjusted by some fair tribunal
provided for the purpose, and the route must not be closed pending
the controversy. This is our whole policy, and it can not fail to be
acceptable to other nations.

All these difficulties might be avoided if, consistently with the
good faith of Nicaragua, the use of this transit could be thrown open
to general competition, providing at the same time for the payment of
a reasonable rate to the Nicaraguan Government on passengers and
freight. In August, 1852, the Accessory Transit Company made its
first interoceanic trip over the Nicaraguan route, and continued in
successful operation, with great advantage to the public, until the
18th February, 1856, when it was closed and the grant to this company
as well as its charter were summarily and arbitrarily revoked by the
Government of President Rivas. Previous to this date, however, in
1854, serious disputes concerning the settlement of their accounts
had arisen between the company and the Government, threatening the
interruption of the route at any moment. These the United States in
vain endeavored to compose. It would be useless to narrate the
various proceedings which took place between the parties up till the
time when the transit was discontinued. Suffice it to say that since
February, 1856, it has remained closed, greatly to the prejudice of
citizens of the United States. Since that time the competition has
ceased between the rival routes of Panama and Nicaragua, and in
consequence thereof an unjust and unreasonable amount has been
exacted from our citizens for their passage to and from California.

A treaty was signed on the 16th day of November, 1857, by the
Secretary of State and minister of Nicaragua, under the stipulations
of which the use and protection of the transit route would have been
secured, not only to the United States, but equally to all other
nations. How and on what pretext this treaty has failed to receive
the ratification of the Nicaraguan Government will appear by the
papers herewith communicated from the State Department. The principal
objection seems to have been to the provision authorizing the United
States to employ force to keep the route open in case Nicaragua
should fail to perform her duty in this respect. From the feebleness
of that Republic, its frequent changes of government, and its
constant internal dissensions, this had become a most important
stipulation, and one essentially necessary, not only for the security
of the route, but for the safety of American citizens passing and
repassing to and from our Pacific possessions. Were such a
stipulation embraced in a treaty between the United States and
Nicaragua, the knowledge of this fact would of itself most probably
prevent hostile parties from committing aggressions on the route, and
render our actual interference for its protection unnecessary.

The executive government of this country in its intercourse with
foreign nations is limited to the employment of diplomacy alone. When
this fails it can proceed no further. It can not legitimately resort
to force without the direct authority of Congress, except in
resisting and repelling hostile attacks. It would have no authority
to enter the territories of Nicaragua even to prevent the destruction
of the transit and protect the lives and property of our own citizens
on their passage. It is true that on a sudden emergency of this
character the President would direct any armed force in the vicinity
to march to their relief, but in doing this he would act upon his own
responsibility.

Under these circumstances I earnestly recommend to Congress the
passage of an act authorizing the president, under such restrictions
as they may deem proper, to employ the land and naval forces of the
United States in preventing the transit from being obstructed or
closed by lawless violence, and in protecting the lives and property
of American citizens traveling thereupon, requiring at the same time
that these forces shall be withdrawn the moment the danger shall have
passed away. Without such a provision our citizens will be constantly
exposed to interruption in their progress and to lawless violence.

A similar necessity exists for the passage of such an act for the
protection of the Panama and Tehuantepec routes. In reference to the
Panama route, the United States, by their existing treaty with New
Granada, expressly guarantee the neutrality of the Isthmus, "with the
view that the free transit from the one to the other sea may not be
interrupted or embarrassed in any future time while this treaty
exists."

In regard to the Tehuantepec route, which has been recently opened
under the most favorable auspices, our treaty with Mexico of the 30th
December, 1853, secures to the citizens of the United States a right
of transit over it for their persons and merchandise and stipulates
that neither Government shall "interpose any obstacle" thereto. It
also concedes to the United States the "right to transport across the
Isthmus, in closed bags, the mails of the United States not intended
for distribution along the line of the communication; also the
effects of the United States Government and its citizens which may be
intended for transit and not for distribution on the Isthmus, free of
custom-house or other charges by the Mexican Government."

These treaty stipulations with New Granada and Mexico, in addition to
the considerations applicable to the Nicaragua route, seem to require
legislation for the purpose of carrying them into effect.

The injuries which have been inflicted upon our citizens in Costa
Rica and Nicaragua during the last two or three years have received
the prompt attention of this Government. Some of these injuries were
of the most aggravated character. The transaction at Virgin Bay in
April, 1856, when a company of unarmed Americans, who were in no way
connected with any belligerent conduct or party, were fired upon by
the troops of Costa Rica and numbers of them killed and wounded, was
brought to the knowledge of Congress by my predecessor soon after its
occurrence, and was also presented to the Government of Costa Rica for
that immediate investigation and redress which the nature of the case
demanded. A similar course was pursued with reference to other
outrages in these countries, some of which were hardly less
aggravated in their character than the transaction at Virgin Bay. At
the time, however, when our present minister to Nicaragua was
appointed, in December, 1857, no redress had been obtained for any of
these wrongs and no reply even had been received to the demands which
had been made by this Government upon that of Costa Rica more than a
year before. Our minister was instructed, therefore, to lose no time
in expressing to those Governments the deep regret with which the
President had witnessed this inattention to the just claims of the
United States and in demanding their prompt and satisfactory
adjustment. Unless this demand shall be complied with at an early day
it will only remain for this Government to adopt such other measures
as may be necessary in order to obtain for itself that justice which
it has in vain attempted to secure by peaceful means from the
Governments of Nicaragua and Costa Rica. While it has shown, and will
continue to show, the most sincere regard for the rights and honor of
these Republics, it can not permit this regard to be met by an utter
neglect on their part of what is due to the Government and citizens
of the United States.

Against New Granada we have long-standing causes of complaint,
arising out of the unsatisfied claims of our citizens upon that
Republic, and to these have been more recently added the outrages
committed upon our citizens at Panama in April, 1856. A treaty for
the adjustment of these difficulties was concluded by the Secretary
of State and the minister of New Granada in September, 1857, which
contained just and acceptable provisions for that purpose. This
treaty was transmitted to Bogota and was ratified by the Government
of New Granada, but with certain amendments. It was not, however,
returned to this city until after the close of the last session of
the Senate. It will be immediately transmitted to that body for their
advice and consent, and should this be obtained it will remove all our
existing causes of complaint against New Granada on the subject of
claims.

Questions have arisen between the two Governments as to the right of
New Granada to levy a tonnage duty upon the vessels of the United
States in its ports of the Isthmus and to levy a passenger tax upon
our citizens arriving in that country, whether with a design to
remain there or to pass from ocean to ocean by the transit route; and
also a tax upon the mail of the United States transported over the
Panama Railroad. The Government of New Granada has been informed that
the United States would consider the collection of either of these
taxes as an act in violation of the treaty between the two countries,
and as such would be resisted by the United States. At the same time,
we are prepared to discuss these questions in a spirit of amity and
justice and with a sincere desire to adjust them in a satisfactory
manner. A negotiation for that purpose has already been commenced. No
effort has recently been made to collect these taxes nor is any
anticipated under present circumstances.

With the Empire of Brazil our relations are of the most friendly
character. The productions of the two countries, and especially those
of an agricultural nature, are such as to invite extensive mutual
exchanges. A large quantity of American flour is consumed in Brazil,
whilst more than treble the amount in value of Brazilian coffee is
consumed in the United States. Whilst this is the case, a heavy duty
has been levied until very recently upon the importation of American
flour into Brazil. I am gratified, however, to be able to inform you
that in September last this has been r