State of the Union Addresses of Franklin Pierce
F >>
Franklin Pierce >> State of the Union Addresses of Franklin Pierce
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 | 6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11
The interpretation which the British Government thus, in assertion and act,
persists in ascribing to the convention entirely changes its character.
While it holds us to all our obligations, it in a great measure releases
Great Britain from those which constituted the consideration of this
Government for entering into the convention. It is impossible, in my
judgment, for the United States to acquiesce in such a construction of the
respective relations of the two Governments to Central America.
To a renewed call by this Government upon Great Britain to abide by and
Carry into effect the stipulations of the convention according to its
obvious import by withdrawing from the possession or colonization of
portions of the Central American States of Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa
Rica, the British Government has at length replied, affirming that the
operation of the treaty is prospective only and did not require Great
Britain to abandon or contract any possessions held by her in Central
America at the date of its conclusion.
This reply substitutes a partial issue in the place of the general one
presented by the United States. The British Government passes over the
question of the rights of Great Britain, real or supposed, in Central
America, and assumes that she had such rights at the date of the treaty and
that those rights comprehended the protectorship of the Mosquito Indians,
the extended jurisdiction and limits of the Balize, and the colony of the
Bay Islands, and thereupon proceeds by implication to infer that if the
stipulations of the treaty be merely future in effect Great Britain may
still continue to hold the contested portions of Central America. The
United States can not admit either the inference or the premises. We
steadily deny that at the date of the treaty Great Britain had any
possessions there other than the limited and peculiar establishment at the
Balize, and maintain that if she had any they were surrendered by the
convention.
This Government, recognizing the obligations of the treaty, has, of course,
desired to see it executed in good faith by both parties, and in the
discussion, therefore, has not looked to rights which we might assert
independently of the treaty in consideration of our geographical position
and of other circumstances which create for us relations to the Central
American States different from those of any government of Europe. The
British Government, in its last communication, although well knowing the
views of the United States, still declares that it sees no reason why a
conciliatory spirit may not enable the two Governments to overcome all
obstacles to a satisfactory adjustment of the subject.
Assured of the correctness of the construction of the treaty constantly
adhered to by this Government and resolved to insist on the rights of the
United States, yet actuated also by the same desire which is avowed by the
British Government, to remove all causes of serious misunderstanding
between two nations associated by so many ties of interest and kindred, it
has appeared to me proper not to consider an amicable solution of the
controversy hopeless.
There is, however, reason to apprehend that with Great Britain in the
actual occupation of the disputed territories, and the treaty therefore
practically null so far as regards our rights, this international
difficulty can not long remain undetermined without involving in serious
danger the friendly relations which it is the interest as well as the duty
of both countries to cherish and preserve. It will afford me sincere
gratification if future efforts shall result in the success anticipated
heretofore with more confidence than the aspect of the case permits me now
to entertain.
One other subject of discussion between the United States and Great Britain
has grown out of the attempt, which the exigencies of the war in which she
is engaged with Russia induced her to make, to draw recruits from the
United States.
It is the traditional and settled policy of the United States to maintain
impartial neutrality during the wars which from time to time occur among
the great powers of the world. Performing all the duties of neutrality
toward the respective belligerent states, we may reasonably expect them not
to interfere with our lawful enjoyment of its benefits. Notwithstanding the
existence of such hostilities, our citizens retained the individual right
to continue all their accustomed pursuits, by land or by sea, at home or
abroad, subject only to such restrictions in this relation as the laws of
war, the usage of nations, or special treaties may impose; and it is our
sovereign right that our territory and jurisdiction shall not be invaded by
either of the belligerent parties for the transit of their armies, the
operations of their fleets, the levy of troops for their service, the
fitting out of cruisers by or against either, or any other act or incident
of war. And these undeniable rights of neutrality, individual and national,
the United States will under no circumstances surrender.
In pursuance of this policy, the laws of the United States do not forbid
their citizens to sell to either of the belligerent powers articles
contraband of war or take munitions of war or soldiers on board their
private ships for transportation; and although in so doing the individual
citizen exposes his property or person to some of the hazards of war, his
acts do not involve any breach of national neutrality nor of themselves
implicate the Government. Thus, during the progress of the present war in
Europe, our citizens have, without national responsibility therefor, sold
gunpowder and arms to all buyers, regardless of the destination of those
articles. Our merchantmen have been, and still continue to be, largely
employed by Great Britain and by France in transporting troops, provisions,
and munitions of war to the principal seat of military operations and in
bringing home their sick and wounded soldiers; but such use of our
mercantile marine is not interdicted either by the international or by our
municipal law, and therefore does not compromise our neutral relations with
Russia. But our municipal law, in accordance with the law of nations,
peremptorily forbids not only foreigners, but our own citizens, to fit out
within the United States a vessel to commit hostilities against any state
with which the United States are at peace, or to increase the force of any
foreign armed vessel intended for such hostilities against a friendly
state.
Whatever concern may have been felt by either of the belligerent powers
lest private armed cruisers or other vessels in the service of one might be
fitted out in the ports of this country to depredate on the property of the
other, all such fears have proved to be utterly groundless. Our citizens
have been withheld from any such act or purpose by good faith and by
respect for the law.
While the laws of the Union are thus peremptory in their prohibition of the
equipment or armament of belligerent cruisers in our ports, they provide
not less absolutely that no person shall, within the territory or
jurisdiction of the United States, enlist or enter himself, or hire or
retain another person to enlist or enter himself, or to go beyond the
limits or jurisdiction of the United States with intent to be enlisted or
entered, in the service of any foreign state, either as a soldier or as a
marine or seaman on board of any vessel of war, letter of marque, or
privateer. And these enactments are also in strict conformity with the law
of nations, which declares that no state has the right to raise troops for
land or sea service in another state without its consent, and that, whether
forbidden by the municipal law or not, the very attempt to do it without
such consent is an attack on the national sovereignty.
Such being the public rights and the municipal law of the United States, no
solicitude on the subject was entertained by this Government when, a year
since, the British Parliament passed an act to provide for the enlistment
of foreigners in the military service of Great Britain. Nothing on the face
of the act or in its public history indicated that the British Government
proposed to attempt recruitment in the United States, nor did it ever give
intimation of such intention to this Government. It was matter of surprise,
therefore, to find subsequently that the engagement of persons within the
United States to proceed to Halifax, in the British Province of Nova
Scotia, and there enlist in the service of Great Britain, was going on
extensively, with little or no disguise. Ordinary legal steps were
immediately taken to arrest and punish parties concerned, and so put an end
to acts infringing the municipal law and derogatory to our sovereignty.
Meanwhile suitable representations on the subject were addressed to the
British Government.
Thereupon it became known, by the admission of the British Government
itself, that the attempt to draw recruits from this country originated with
it, or at least had its approval and sanction; but it also appeared that
the public agents engaged in it bad "stringent instructions" not to violate
the municipal law of the United States.
It is difficult to understand how it should have been supposed that troops
could be raised here by Great Britain without violation of the municipal
law. The unmistakable object of the law was to prevent every such act which
if performed must be either in violation of the law or in studied evasion
of it, and in either alternative the act done would be alike injurious to
the sovereignty of the United States. In the meantime the matter acquired
additional importance by the recruitments in the United States not being
discontinued, and the disclosure of the fact that they were prosecuted upon
a systematic plan devised by official authority; that recruiting rendezvous
had been opened in our principal cities and depots for the reception of
recruits established on our frontier, and the whole business conducted
under the supervision and by the regular cooperation of British officers,
civil and military, some in the North American Provinces and some in the
United States. The complicity of those officers in an undertaking which
could only be accomplished by defying our laws, throwing suspicion over our
attitude of neutrality, and disregarding our territorial rights is
conclusively proved by the evidence elicited on the trial of such of their
agents as have been apprehended and convicted. Some of the officers thus
implicated are of high official position, and many of them beyond our
jurisdiction, so that legal proceedings could not reach the source of the
mischief.
These considerations, and the fact that the cause of complaint was not a
mere casual occurrence, trot a deliberate design, entered upon with full
knowledge of our laws and national policy and conducted by responsible
public functionaries, impelled me to present the case to the British
Government, in order to secure not only a cessation of the, wrong, but its
reparation. The subject is still under discussion, the result of which will
be communicated to you in due time.
I repeat the recommendation submitted to the last Congress, that provision
be made for the appointment of a commissioner, in connection with Great
Britain, to survey and establish the boundary line which divides the
Territory of Washington from the contiguous British possessions. By reason
of the extent and importance of the country in dispute, there has been
imminent danger of collision between the subjects of Great Britain and the
citizens of the United States, including their respective authorities, in
that quarter. The prospect of a speedy arrangement has contributed hitherto
to induce on both sides forbearance to assert by force what each claims as
a right. Continuance of delay on the part of the two Governments to act in
the matter will increase the dangers and difficulties of the controversy.
Misunderstanding exists as to the extent, character, and value of the
possessory rights of the Hudsons Bay Company and the property of the Pugets
Sound Agricultural Company reserved in our treaty with Great Britain
relative to the Territory of Oregon. I have reason to believe that a
cession of the rights of both companies to the United States, which would
be the readiest means of terminating all questions, can be obtained on
reasonable terms, and with a view to this end I present the subject to the
attention of Congress.
The colony of Newfoundland, having enacted the laws required by the treaty
of the 5th of June, 1854, is now placed on the same footing in respect to
commercial intercourse with the United States as the other British North
American Provinces.
The commission which that treaty contemplated, for determining the rights
of fishery in rivers and mouths of rivers on the coasts of the United
States and the British North American Provinces, has been organized, and
has commenced its labors, to complete which there are needed further
appropriations for the service of another season.
In pursuance of the authority conferred by a resolution of the Senate of
the United States passed on the 3d of March last, notice was given to
Denmark on the 14th day of April of the intention of this Government to
avail itself of the stipulation of the subsisting convention of friendship,
commerce, and navigation between that Kingdom and the United States whereby
either party might after ten years terminate the same at the expiration of
one year from the date of notice for that purpose.
The considerations which led me to call the attention of Congress to that
convention and induced the Senate to adopt the resolution referred to still
continue in full force. The convention contains an article which, although
it does not directly engage the United States to submit to the imposition
of tolls on the vessels and cargoes of Americans passing into or from the
Baltic Sea during the continuance of the treaty, yet may by possibility be
construed as implying such submission. The exaction of those tolls not
being justified by any principle of international law, it became the right
and duty of the United States to relieve themselves from the implication of
engagement on the subject, so as to be perfectly free to act in the
premises in such way as their public interests and honor shall demand.
I remain of the opinion that the United States ought not to submit to the
payment of the Sound dues, not so much because of their amount, which is a
secondary matter, but because it is in effect the recognition of the right
of Denmark to treat one of the great maritime highways of nations as a
close sea, and prevent the navigation of it as a privilege, for which
tribute may be imposed upon those who have occasion to use it.
This Government on a former occasion, not unlike the present, signalized
its determination to maintain the freedom of the seas and of the great
natural channels of navigation. The Barbary States had for a long time
coerced the payment of tribute from all nations whose ships frequented the
Mediterranean. To the last demand of such payment made by them the United
States, although suffering less by their depredations than many other
nations, returned the explicit answer that we preferred war to tribute, and
thus opened the way to the relief of the commerce of the world from an
ignominious tax, so long submitted to by the more powerful nations of
Europe.
If the manner of payment of the Sound dues differ from that of the tribute
formerly conceded to the Barbary States, still their exaction by Denmark
has no better foundation in right. Each was in its origin nothing but a tax
on a common natural right, extorted by those who were at that time able to
obstruct the free and secure enjoyment of it, but who no longer possess
that power.
Denmark, while resisting our assertion of the freedom of the Baltic Sound
and Belts, has indicated a readiness to make some new arrangement on the
subject, and has invited the governments interested, including the United
States, to be represented in a convention to assemble for the purpose of
receiving and considering a proposition which she intends to submit for the
capitalization of the Sound dues and the distribution of the sum to be paid
as commutation among the governments according to the respective
proportions of their maritime commerce to and from the Baltic. I have
declined, in behalf of the United States, to accept this invitation, for
the most cogent reasons. One is that Denmark does not offer to submit to
the convention the question of her right to levy the Sound dues. The second
is that if the convention were allowed to take cognizance of that
particular question, still it would not be competent to deal with the great
international principle involved, which affects the right in other cases of
navigation and commercial freedom, as well as that of access to the Baltic.
Above all, by the express terms of the proposition it is contemplated that
the consideration of the Sound dues shall be commingled with and made
subordinate to a matter wholly extraneous--the balance of power among the
Governments of Europe.
While, however, rejecting this proposition and insisting on the right of
free transit into and from the Baltic, I have expressed to Denmark a
willingness on the part of the United States to share liberally with other
powers in compensating her for any advantages which commerce shall
hereafter derive from expenditures made by her for the improvement and
safety of the navigation of the Sound or Belts.
I lay before you herewith sundry documents on the subject, in which my
views are more fully disclosed. Should no satisfactory arrangement be soon
concluded, I shall again call your attention to the subject, with
recommendation of such measures as may appear to be required in order to
assert and secure the rights of the United States, so far as they are
affected by the pretensions of Denmark.
I announce with much gratification that since the adjournment of the last
Congress the question then existing between this Government and that of
France respecting the French consul at San Francisco has been
satisfactorily determined, and that the relations of the two Governments
continue to be of the most friendly nature.
A question, also, which has been pending for several years between the
United States and the Kingdom of Greece, growing out of the sequestration
by public authorities of that country of property belonging to the present
American consul at Athens, and which had been the subject of very earnest
discussion heretofore, has recently been settled to the satisfaction of the
party interested and of both Governments.
With Spain peaceful relations are still maintained, and some progress has
been made in securing the redress of wrongs complained of by this
Government. Spain has not only disavowed and disapproved the conduct of the
officers who illegally seized and detained the steamer Black Warrior at
Havana, but has also paid the sum claimed as indemnity for the loss thereby
inflicted on citizens of the United States.
In consequence of a destructive hurricane which visited Cuba in 1844, the
supreme authority of that island issued a decree permitting the importation
for the period of six months of certain building materials and provisions
free of duty, but revoked it when about half the period only had elapsed,
to the injury of citizens of the United States who had proceeded to act on
the faith of that decree. The Spanish Government refused indemnification to
the parties aggrieved until recently, when it was assented to, payment
being promised to be made so soon as the amount due can be ascertained.
Satisfaction claimed for the arrest and search of the steamer El Dorado has
not yet been accorded, but there is reason to believe that it will be; and
that case, with others, continues to be urged on the attention of the
Spanish Government. I do not abandon the hope of concluding with Spain some
general arrangement which, if it do not wholly prevent the recurrence of
difficulties in Cuba, will render them less frequent, and, whenever they
shall occur, facilitate their more speedy settlement.
The interposition of this Government has been invoked by many of its
citizens on account of injuries done to their persons and property for
which the Mexican Republic is responsible. The unhappy situation of that
country for some time past has not allowed its Government to give due
consideration to claims of private reparation, and has appeared to call for
and justify some forbearance in such matters on the part of this
Government. But if the revolutionary movements which have lately occurred
in that Republic end in the organization of a stable government, urgent
appeals to its justice will then be made, and, it may be hoped, with
success, for the redress of all complaints of our citizens.
In regard to the American Republics, which from their proximity and other
considerations have peculiar relations to this Government, while it has
been my constant aim strictly to observe all the obligations of political
friendship and of good neighborhood, obstacles to this have arisen in some
of them from their own insufficient power to cheek lawless irruptions,
which in effect throws most of the task on the United States. Thus it is
that the distracted internal condition of the State of Nicaragua has made
it incumbent on me to appeal to the good faith of our citizens to abstain
from unlawful intervention in its affairs and to adopt preventive measures
to the same end, which on a similar occasion had the best results in
reassuring the peace of the Mexican States of Sonora and Lower California.
Since the last session of Congress a treaty of amity, commerce, and
navigation and for the surrender of fugitive criminals with the Kingdom of
the Two Sicilies; a treaty of friendship, commerce, and navigation with
Nicaragua, and a convention of commercial reciprocity with the Hawaiian
Kingdom have been negotiated. The latter Kingdom and the State of Nicaragua
have also acceded to a declaration recognizing as international rights the
principles contained in the convention between the United States and Russia
of July 22, 1854. These treaties and conventions will be laid before the
Senate for ratification.
The statements made in my last annual message respecting the anticipated
receipts and expenditures of the Treasury have been substantially
verified.
It appears from the report of the Secretary of the Treasury that the
receipts during the last fiscal year, ending June 30, 1855, from all
sources were $65,003,930, and that the public expenditures for the same
period, exclusive of payments on account of the public debt, amounted to
$56,365,393. During the same period the payments made in redemption of the
public debt, including interest and premium, amounted to $9,844,528.
The balance in the Treasury at the beginning of the present fiscal year,
July 1, 1855., was $18,931,976; the receipts for the first quarter and the
estimated receipts for the remaining three quarters amount together to
$67,918,734; thus affording in all, as the available resources of the
current fiscal year, the sum of $86,856,710.
If to the actual expenditures of the first quarter of the current fiscal
year be added the probable expenditures for the remaining three quarters,
as estimated by the Secretary of the Treasury, the sum total will be
$71,226,846, thereby leaving an estimated balance in the Treasury on July
1, 1856, of $15,623,863.41.
In the above-estimated expenditures of the present fiscal year are included
$3,000,000 to meet the last installment of the ten millions provided for in
the late treaty with Mexico and $7,750,000 appropriated on account of the
debt due to Texas, which two sums make an aggregate amount of $10,750,000
and reduce the expenditures, actual or estimated, for ordinary objects of
the year to the sum of $60,476,000.
The amount of the public debt at the commencement of the present fiscal
year was $40,583,631, and, deduction being made of subsequent payments, the
whole public debt of the Federal Government remaining at this time is less
than $40,000,000. The remnant of certain other Government stocks, amounting
to $243,000, referred to in my last message as outstanding, has since been
paid.
I am fully persuaded that it would be difficult to devise a system superior
to that by which the fiscal business of the Government is now conducted.
Notwithstanding the great number of public agents of collection and
disbursement, it is believed that the checks and guards provided, including
the requirement of monthly returns, render it scarcely possible for any
considerable fraud on the part of those agents or neglect involving hazard
of serious public loss to escape detection. I renew, however, the
recommendation heretofore made by me of the enactment of a law declaring it
felony on the part of public officers to insert false entries in their
books of record or account or to make false returns, and also requiring
them on the termination of their service to deliver to their successors all
books, records, and other objects of a public nature in their custody.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 | 6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11