bad faith can be implied or charged upon the government of the United States, for successfully negotiating with an independent power, upon any subject not violating the stipulations of such treaty, I confess my inability to discern.

The objections which have been taken to the enlargement of our territory, were urged with much zeal against the acquisition of Louisiana; and yet the futility of such has long since been fully demonstrated. Since that period, a new power has been introduced into the affairs of the world, which has, for all practical purposes, brought Texas much nearer to the seat of government than Louisiana was at the time of its annexation. Distant regions are, by the application of the steam-engine, brought within a close proximity.

With the views which I entertain on the subject, I should prove faithless to the high trust which the constitution has devolved upon me, if I neglected to invite the attention of the representatives of the people to it at the earliest moment that a due respect for the senate would allow me so to do. I should find in the urgency of the matter a sufficient apology, if one was wanting, since annexation is to encounter a great, if not a certain hazard of final defeat, if something be not now done to prevent it. Upon this point I can not too impressively invite your attention to my message of the 15th of May, and to the documents which accompany it, which have not heretofore been made public. If it be objected that the names of the writers of some of the private letters are withheld, all that I can say is, that it is done for reasons regarded as altogether adequate, and that the writers are persons of the first respectability, and citizens of Texas, and have such means of obtaining information as to entitle their statements to full credit. Nor has anything occurred to weaken, but, on the contrary, much to confirm my confidence in the statements of General Jackson, and my own statement made at the close of that message, in the belief, amounting almost to certainty, "that instructions have already been given by the Texan government, to propose to the government of Great Britain forthwith, on the failure of the treaty, to enter into a treaty of commerce, and an alliance, offensive and defensive."

I also particularly invite your attention to the letter from Mr. Everett, our envoy at London, containing an account of a conversation in the house of lords, which lately occurred between Lord Brougham and Lord Aberdeen, in relation to the question of annexation. Nor can I do so without the expression of some surprise at the language that the minister of foreign affairs employed upon the occasion. That a kingdom, which is made what it now is by repeated acts of annexation-beginning with the time of the heptarchy, and concluding with the annexation of the kingdoms of Ireland and Scotland-should perceive any principle either novel or serious in the late proceedings of the American executive in regard to Texas, is well calculated to excite surprise. If it be pretended that, because of commercial or political relations which may exist between the two countries, neither has a right to part with its sovereignty, and that no third power can change those relations by a voluntary treaty of union or annexation, then it would seem to follow that an annexation to be achieved by force of arms, in the prosecution of a just and necessary war, could in no way be justified; and yet it is presumed that Great Britain would be the last nation in the world to maintain any such doctrine. The commercial and political relations of many of the countries of Europe have undergone repeated changes, by voluntary treaties, by conquest, and by partitions of

their territories, without any question as to the right under the public law. The question, in this view of it, can be considered as neither "serious" nor "novel." I will not permit myself to believe that the British minister designed to bring himself to any such conclusion; but it is impossible for us to be blind to the fact, that the statements contained in Mr. Everett's despatch are well worthy of serious consideration. The government and people of the United States have never evinced, nor do they feel, any desire to interfere in public questions not affecting the relations existing between the states of the American continent. We leave the European powers exclusive control over matters affecting their continent, and the relations of their different states. The United States claim a similar exemption from any such interference on their part. The treaty with Texas was negotiated from considerations of a high public policy, influencing the conduct of the two republics. We have treated with Texas as an independent power, solely with a view of bettering the condition of the two countries. If annexation in any form occur, it will arise from the free and unfettered action of the people of the two countries; and it seems altogether becoming in me to say, that the honor of the country, the dignity of the American name, and the permanent interests of the United States, would forbid acquiescence in any such interference. No one can more highly appreciate the value of peace to both Great Britain and the United States, and the capacity of each to do injury to the other, than myself; but yet peace can best be preserved by maintaining firmly the rights which belong to us as an independent community.

So much have I considered it proper for me to say; and it becomes me only to add, that while I have regarded the annexation to be accomplished by treaty as the most suitable form in which it could be effected, should Congress deem it proper to resort to any other expedient compatible with the constitution, and likely to accomplish the object, I stand prepared to yield my most prompt and active co-operation.

The great question is-not as to the manner in which it shall be done, but whether it shall be accomplished or not.

The responsibility of deciding this question is now devolved upon you.

EASTERN-HARBOR BILL VETO.

JUNE 11, 1844.

To the House of Representatives of the United States :

I RETURN to the house of representatives, in which it originated, the bill entitled, " An act making appropriations for the improvement of certain harbors and rivers," with the following objections to its becoming a law:

At the adoption of the constitution, each state was possessed of a separate and independent sovereignty, and an exclusive jurisdiction over all streams and water-courses within its territorial limits. The articles of confederation in no way affected this authority or jurisdiction; and the present constitution, adopted for the purpose of correcting the defects which existed in the original articles, expressly reserves to the states all powers not delegated. No such surrender of jurisdiction is made by the states to

this government, by any express grant; and if it is possessed, it is to be deduced from the clause in the constitution which invests Congress with authority" to make all laws which are necessary and proper for carrying into execution" the granted powers. There is, in my view of the subject, no pretence whatever for the claim to power which the bill now returned substantially sets up. The inferential power, in order to be legitimate, must be clearly and plainly incidental to some granted power, and necessary to its exercise.

To refer it to the head of convenience or usefulness, would be to throw open the door to a boundless and unlimited discretion, and to invest Congress with an unrestrained authority. The power to remove obstructions from the water-courses of the states is claimed under the granted power" to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with the Indian tribes ;" but the plain and obvious meaning of this grant is, that Congress may adopt rules and regulations prescribing the terms and conditions on which the citizens of the United States may carry on commercial operations with foreign states or kingdoms, and on which the citizens or subjects of foreign states or kingdoms may prosecute trade with the United States, or either of them. And so the power to regulate commerce among the several states no more invests Congress with jurisdiction over the water-courses of the states, than the first branch of the grant does over the water-courses of foreign powers: which would be an absurdity.

The right of common use of the people of the United States to the navigable waters of each and every state, arises from the express stipulation contained in the constitution, that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." While, therefore, the navigation of any river in any state is, by the laws of such state, allowed to the citizens thereof, the same is also secured by the constitution of the United States, on the same terms and conditions, to the citizens of every other state, and so of any other privilege or immunity.

The application of the revenue of this government, if the power to do so was admitted, to improving the navigation of the rivers by removing obstructions or otherwise, would be for the most part productive only of local benefit. The consequences might prove disastrously ruinous to as many of our fellow-citizens as the exercise of such power would benefit. I will take one instance furnished by the present bill-out of no invidious feeling, for such it would be impossible for me to feel, but because of my greater familiarity with locations-in illustration of the above opinion: Twenty thousand dollars are proposed to be appropriated toward improving the harbor of Richmond, in the state of Virginia. Such improvement would furnish advantages to the city of Richmond, and add to the value of the property of its citizens, while it might have a most disastrous influence over the wealth and prosperity of Petersburg, which is situated some twenty-five miles distant, on a branch of James river, and which now enjoys its fair proportion of the trade. So, too, the improvement of James river to Richmond, and the Appamattox to Petersburg, might, by inviting the trade of those two towns, have the effect of prostrating the town of Norfolk. This, too, might be accomplished without adding a single vessel to the number now engaged in the trade of the Chesapeake bay, or bringing into the treasury a dollar of additional revenue. It would produce, most probably, the single effect of concentrating the commerce now profitably enjoyed by three places, upon one of them. This case fur

nishes an apt illustration of the effect of this bill in several other particulars.

There can not, in fact, be drawn the slightest discrimination between the improving the streams of a state under the power to regulate commerce, and the most extended system of internal improvements on land. The excavating a canal, and paving a road, are equally as much incident to such a claim of power, as the removing obstructions from water-courses; nor can such power be restricted, by any fair course of reasoning, to the mere fact of making the improvement. It reasonably extends, also, to the right of seeking a return of the means expended, through the exaction of tolls and the levying of contributions. Thus, while the constitution denies to this government the privilege of acquiring a property in the soil of any state, even for the purpose of erecting a necessary fortification, with out a grant from such state, this claim to power would invest it with control and dominion over the waters and soil of each state, without restriction. Power so incongruous can not exist in the same instrument.

The bill is also liable to serious objection, because of its blending appropriations for numerous objects, but few of which agree in their general features. This necessarily produces the effect of embarrassing executive action. Some of the appropriations would receive my sanction, if separa ted from the rest, however much I might deplore the reproduction of a system which, for some time past, has been permitted to sleep with, apparently, the acquiescence of the country. I might particularize the Delaware breakwater, as an improvement which looks to the security, from the storms of our extended Atlantic seaboard, of the vessels of all the country engaged either in the foreign or the coastwise trade, as well as to the safety of the revenue; but when, in connexion with that, the same bill embraces improvements of rivers at points far in the interior, connected alone with the trade of such river, and the exertion of mere local influences, no alternative is left me but to use the qualified veto, with which the executive is invested by the constitution, and to return the bill to the house in which it originated, for its ultimate reconsideration and decision. In sanctioning a bill of the same title with that returned, for the improvement of the Mississippi and its chief tributaries, and certain harbors on the lakes-if I bring myself apparently in conflict with any of the prin ciples herein asserted, it will arise on my part exclusively from the want of a just appreciation of localities. The Mississippi occupies a footing altogether different from the river and water courses of the different states. No one state, or any number of states, can exercise any other jurisdiction over it than for the punishment of crimes and the service of civil process. It belongs to no particular state or states, but of common right, by express reservation, to all the states. It is reserved as a great common highway for the commerce of the whole country. To have conceded to Louisiana, or to any other state admitted as a new state into the Union, the exclusive jurisdiction, and consequently the right to make improvements and to levy tolls on the segments of the river embraced within its territorial limits, would have disappointed the chief object in the purchase of Louisianawhich was, to secure the free use of the Mississippi to all the people of the United States. Whether levies on commerce were made on foreign or domestic government, would have been equally burdensome and objec tionable. The United States, therefore, is charged with its improvement, for the benefit of all; and the appropriation of governmental means to its improvement becomes indispensably necessary for the good of all.

As to the harbors on the lakes, the act originates no new improvements, but makes appropriations for the continuance of works already begun.

It is as much the duty of the government to construct good harbors, without reference to the location or interests of cities, for the shelter of the extensive commerce of the lakes, as to build breakwaters on the Atlantic coast for the protection of the trade of that ocean. These great inland seas are visited by destructive storms; and the annual loss of ships and cargoes, and consequently of revenue to the government, is immense. If, then, there be any work embraced by the act, which is not required in order to afford shelter and security to the shipping against the tempests which so often sweep over those great inland seas, but has, on the contrary, originated more in a spirit of speculation and local interest than in one of the character alluded to, the house of representatives will regard my approval of the bill more as the result of misinformation, than any design to abandon or modify the principles laid down in this message. Every system is liable to run into abuse, and none more so than that under consideration; and measures can not be too soon taken by Congress to guard against this evil.

FOURTH ANNUAL MESSAGE.

DECEMBER 3, 1844.

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States :WE have continued cause for expressing our gratitude to the Supreme Ruler of the universe, for the benefits and blessings which our country, under his kind providence, has enjoyed during the past year. Notwithstanding the exciting scenes through which we have passed, nothing has occurred to disturb the general peace, or to derange the harmony of our political system. The great moral spectacle has been exhibited, of a nation, approximating in number to twenty millions of people, having performed the high and important function of electing their chief magistrate for the term of four years, without the commission of any acts of violence, or the manifestation of a spirit of insubordination to the laws. The great and inestimable right of suffrage has been exercised by all who were invested with it, under the laws of the different states, in a spirit dictated alone by a desire, in the selection of the agent, to advance the interests of the country, and to place beyond jeopardy the institutions under which it is our happiness to live. That the deepest interest has been manifested by all our countrymen in the result of the election, is not less true than highly creditable to them. Vast multitudes have assembled from time to time, at various places, for the purpose of canvassing the merits and pretensions of those who were presented for their suffrages; but no armed soldiery has been necessary to restrain within proper limits the popular zeal, or to prevent violent outbreaks. A principle much more controlling was found in the love of order and obedience to the laws, which, with mere individual exceptions, everywhere possesses the American mind, and controls with an influence far more powerful than hosts of armed We can not dwell upon this picture without recognising in it that deep and devoted attachment, on the part of the people, to the institutions VOL. II.-41

men.