of the treaty of Ghent, but at the same time as removing all pretext on the part of others for violating the immunities of the American flag, upon the seas, as they exist and are defined by the law of nations, to enter into the articles now submitted to the senate.

“ The treaty which I now submit to you, proposes no alteration, mitigation, or modification of the rules of the laws of nations. It provides simply that each of the two governments shall maintain on the coast of Africa a sufficient squadron to enforce, separately and respectively, the laws, rights, and obligations of the two countries, for the suppression of the slave-trade."

These opinions were expressed by me, officially, upon the occasion of making to the senate a communication of very great importance. It is not perceived how the accuracy of this general statement can be doubted by those who are acquainted with the debates of public bodies in Europe, the productions of the press, and the other modes by which public opinion is manifested in an enlightened age. It is not to be supposed that excited attention to public and national transactions, or general political discussions in Europe, on subjects open to all the world, are known only in consequence of private information communicated to the government, and feeling a strong persuasion that it would be improper in the executive to go into any discussion or argument upon such a subject, with the senate, I have no further remarks to make upon this part of the inquiry.

"What danger there was that the laws and obligations' of the United States, in relation to the suppression of the slave-trade would be executed by others,' if we did not remove the pretext and motive for violating our flag and executing our laws.""

I have already quoted from the message the entire paragraph, to a part of which this portion of the inquiry is supposed to refer. As to the danger there was that the laws and the obligations of the United States, in relation to the suppression of the slave-trade, would be executed by others, if we did not remove the pretext and motive for violating our flag, and provide for executing our laws, I might say that this depends upon notorious facts and occurrences, of which the evidence has been in various forms before the country, and all the branches of the government.

When I came to occupy the executive chair, I could not be ignorant of the numerous complaints which had been made, on account of alleged interruptions of American vessels, engaged in lawful commerce on the coast of Africa, by British cruisers, on the ground of their being engaged in the slave-trade. I could not be ignorant, at the same time, of the wellgrounded suspicions which pervaded the country, that some American vessels were engaged in that odious and unlawful traffic. There were two dangers, then, to be guarded against: the one, that this traffic would continue to be carried on in American ships, and perhaps much increased, unless some new and vigorous effort should be made for its suppression; the other, that acquiescence in the capture of American vessels, notorious slavedealers, by British cruisers, might give countenance to seizures and detention of vessels lawfully employed, on light or groundless suspicions. And cases had arisen, under the administration of those who preceded me, well calculated to show the extent and magnitude of this latter danger; and, believing that very serious consequences might in time grow out of the obvious tendency and progress of things, I felt it to be my duty to ar rest that progress, to rescue the immunity of the American flag from the

danger which hung over it, and to do this by recommending such a provision for the execution of our own laws, as should remove all pretence for the interference of others.

Among the occurrences to which I have alluded, it may be useful to particularize one case.

The schooner Catharine, an American vessel, owned by citizens of the United States, was seized on the coast of Africa, by the British cruiser, called the Dolphin, and brought into the port of New York in the summer of 1839. Upon being brought into port, Benjamin F. Butler, Esq., district attorney of the United States, for the southern district of New York, appeared in the district court of the United States for that district, and in the name and behalf of the United States, libelled the schooner, her apparel, and furniture, for a violation of the several acts of Congress, passed for the suppression of the slave-trade. The schooner being arrested by the usual process in such cases, and possession taken of her from the hands of the British captors, by officers of the United States, the cause proceeded, and by a decree of the circuit court in December, 1840, a forfeiture was pronounced. From this decree an appeal was taken, which is now pending in the supreme court of the United States.

It is true that in another case, that of the Tigris, of like general character, soon after arising, the then secretary of state, on the 1st of March, 1841, informed Mr. Fox, the British minister, that," however strong and unchangeable may be the determination of this government to punish any citizens of the United States who violate the laws against the African slave-trade, it will not permit the exercise of any authority by foreign armed vessels, in the execution of those laws."

But it is evident that this general declaration did not relieve the subject from its difficulties. Vessels of the United States, found engaged in the African slave-trade, are guilty of piracy, under the acts of Congress. It is difficult to say that such vessels can claim any interference of the government in their behalf, into whosesoever hands they may happen to fall, any more than vessels which should turn general pirates. Notorious African slave-traders can not claim the protection of the American character, inasmuch as they are acting in direct violation of the laws of their country, and stand denounced by those laws as pirates. In case of the seizure of such a vessel by a foreign cruiser, and her being brought into a port of the United States, what is to be done with her? Shall she be libelled, prosecuted, and condemned, as if arrested by a cruiser of the United States? If this is to be done, it is clear that the agency of a foreign power has been instrumental in executing the laws of the United States. Or, on the other hand, is the vessel, with all her offences flagrant upon her, to be released, on account of the agency by which she was seized, discharged of all penalties, and left at liberty to renew her illegal and nefarious traffic?

It appeared to me that the best, if not the only mode of avoiding these and other difficulties, was by adopting such a provision as is contained in the late treaty with England.

The senate asks me for the reasons for entering into the stipulations for the "remonstrating embassies" contained in the late treaty. Surely there is no stipulation in the treaty for any "remonstrating embassies," or any other embassies, nor any reference or allusion to any such thing. In this respect, all that the treaty provides is in the ninth article, and is in these words: "The parties to this treaty agree that they will unite in all VOL. II.-38

becoming representions and remonstrances, with any and all powers within whose dominions such markets [for African slaves] are allowed to exist; and that they will urge upon all such powers the propriety and duty of closing such markets effectually, at once and for ever."

It always gives me sincere pleasure to communicate to both houses of Congress anything in my power which may aid them in the discharge of their high duties, and which the public interest does not require to be withheld. In transmitting the late treaty to the senate, everything was caused to accompany it, which it was supposed could enlighten the judgment of the senate upon its various provisions. The views of the executive, in agreeing to the eighth and ninth articles, were fully expressed; and pending the discussion in the senate, every call for further information was promptly complied with, and nothing kept back which the senate desired. Upon this information, and upon its own knowledge of the subject, the senate made up and pronounced its judgment, upon its own high responsibility; and, as the result of that judgment, the treaty was ratified, as the journal shows, by a vote of thirty-nine to nine. The treaty has thus be come the law of the land, by the express advice of the senate, given in the most solemn manner known to its proceedings.

The fourth request is, "That the president be requested to communicate to the senate, all the correspondence with our ministers abroad, relating to the foregoing points of inquiry."

If this branch of the resolution were more definite, some parts of it might, perhaps, be met, without prejudice to the public interest, by extracts from the correspondence referred to. At a future day, a communication may be expected, to be made as broad and general as a proper regard to these interests will admit; but at present, I deem any such communication not to be consistent with the public interest.

The fifth and last is, "That the president be requested to communicate to the senate all such information upon the negotiation of the African squadron articles, as will show the origin of such articles, and the history and progress of their formation."

These articles were proposed to the British minister by the secretary of state, under my express sanction, and were acceded to by him, and have since been ratified by both governments. I might, without disrespect, speak of the novelty of inquiring, by the senate, into the history and progress of articles of a treaty, through a negotiation which has terminated, and as the result of which these articles have become the law of the land, by the constitutional advice of the senate itself. But I repeat, that those articles had their origin in a desire on the part of the government of the United States to fulfil its obligations, entered into by the treaty of Ghent, to do its utmost for the suppression of the African slave-trade, and to accomplish this object by such means as should not lead to the interruption of the lawful commerce of the United States, or any derogation from the dignity and immunity of their flag. And I have the satisfaction to believe, that both the executive, in negotiating the treaty of which these articles form part, and the senate, in advising to its ratification, have effected an object important to the government and satisfactory to the people. In conclusion, I hope I may be permitted to observe, that I have, out of a profound respect for the senate, been induced to make this communication in answer to inquiries, some of which, at least, are believed to be without precedent in the history of the relations between that body and the executive department. These inquiries were particularly unexpected to me, at

the present moment. As I have been so fortunate as to find my own views of the expediency of ratifying the late treaty with England, confirmed by a vote of somewhat more than four fifths of the senators present, I have hitherto flattered myself that the motives which influenced my conduct had been fully appreciated by those who advised and approved it; and that if a necessity should ever arise for any special explanation or defence in regard to those motives, it could scarcely be in that assembly itself.

SPECIAL MESSAGE.

JANUARY 31, 1843.

To the House of Representatives of the United States :

Ar the last session of Congress, a resolution was passed by the house of representatives, requesting me to cause to be communicated to the house "the several reports made to the department of war by Lieutenant-Colonel Hitchcock, relative to the affairs of the Cherokee Indians, together with all information communicated by him concerning the frauds he was charged to investigate; also, all facts in the possession of the executive relating to the subject."

A resolution of the same import has been passed by the house of representatives on the 18th of May last, requiring the secretary of war to communicate to the house the same reports and matters. After consultation

with me, and under my direction, the secretary of war informed the house that the reports referred to, relative to the affairs of the Cherokees, contained information and suggestions in reference to the matters which it was supposed would become the subject of negotiation between that department and the delegates of the Cherokee nation. It was stated by him that the nature and subject of the report, in the opinion of the president and the department, rendered its publication at that time inconsistent with the public interest.

The negotiation referred to subsequently took place, and embraced the matters upon which Lieutenant-Colonel Hitchcock had communicated his views. That negotiation terminated without the conclusion of an arrangement. All the information communicated by Lieutenant-Colonel Hitchcock, respecting the Cherokees, their condition as a nation, and their relations to other tribes, is herewith transmitted. But his suggestions and projects respecting the anticipated propositions of the delegates, and his views of their personal characters, can not, in any event, aid the legisla tion of Congress; and, in my opinion, the promulgation of them would be unfair and unjust to him, and inconsistent with the public interest, and they are therefore not transmitted.

The secretary of war further stated, in his answer to the resolution, that the other report referred to in it, relating to alleged frauds which Lieutenant-Colonel Hitchcock was charged to investigate, contained such information as he (Colonel Hitchcock) was enabled to obtain by exparte inquiries of various persons whose statements were necessarily without the sanction of an oath, and which the persons implicated had had no opportunity to contradict or explain. He expressed the opinion that to promulgate those statements at that time would be grossly unjust to those per

sons, and would be calculated to defeat rather than promote the objects of the inquiry; and he remarked that sufficient opportunity had not been given to the department to pursue the investigation, or to call upon the parties affected for explanations, or to determine on the measures proper to be adopted. And he hoped these reasons would be satisfactory for not transmitting to the house at that time the reports referred to in its resolution.

It would appear, from the report of the committee on Indian affairs, to whom the communication of the secretary of war was referred, and which report has been transmitted to me, together with the resolutions of the house adopted on the recommendation of the committee, and from those resolutions, that the reasons given by the secretary were not deemed satisfactory, and that the house of representatives claims the right to demand from the executive and heads of departments such information as may be in their possession relating to "subjects of the deliberations of the house, and within the sphere of its legitimate powers ;" and that, in the opinion of the house, the reports and facts called for by its resolution of the 18th of May related to subjects of its deliberations, and were within the sphere of its legitimate powers, and should have been communicated.

If, by the assertion of this claim of right to call upon the executive for all the information in its possession, relating to any subject of the deliberations of the house, and within the sphere of its legitimate powers, it is intended to assert, also, that the executive is bound to comply with such call, without the authority to exercise any discretion on its part in ref erence to the nature of the information required, or to the interests of the country, or of individuals to be affected by such compliance, then do I feel bound, in the discharge of the high duty imposed upon me," to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States," to declare in the most respectful manner my entire dissent from such a proposition. The instrument from which the several departments of the government derive their authority makes each independent of the other in the discharge of their respective functions. The injunction of the constitution. that the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” necessarily confers an authority commensurate with the obligation imposed, to inquire into the manner in which all public agents perform the duties assigned to them by law. To be effective, these inquiries must often be confidential. They may result in the collection of truth or of falsehood; or they may be incomplete, and may require further prosecution. To maintain that the president can exercise no discretion as to the time in which the matters thus collected shall be promulgated, or in respect to the character of the information obtained, would deprive him at once of the means of performing one of the most salutary duties of his of fice. An inquiry might be arrested at its first stage, and the officer whose conduct demanded investigation may be enabled to elude or defeat it. To require from the executive the transfer of this discretion to a co-ordinate branch of the government, is equivalent to the denial of its possession by him, and would render him dependent upon that branch in the performance of a duty purely executive.

Nor can it be a sound position, that all papers, documents, and information of every description, which may happen by any means to come into the possession of the president or of the heads of the departments, must necessarily be subject to the call of the house of representatives, merely because they relate to a subject of the deliberations of the house, although