Ought we now to disturb the Missouri and Texas compromises? Ought we at this late day, in attempting to annul what has been so long established and acquiesced in, to excite sectional divisions and jealousies, to alienate the people of different portions of the Union from each other, and to endanger the existence of the Union itself?

From the adoption of the federal constitution, during a period of sixty years, our progress as a nation has been without example in the annals of history. Under the protection of a bountiful Providence, we have advanced with giant strides in the career of wealth and prosperity. We have enjoyed the blessings of freedom to a greater extent than any other people, ancient or modern, under a government which has preserved order, and secured to every citizen life, liberty, and property. We have now become an example for imitation to the whole world. The friends of freedom, in every clime, point with admiration to our institutions. Shall we, then, at the moment when the people of Europe are devoting all their energies in the attempt to assimilate their institutions to our own, peril all our blessings by despising the lessons of experience, and refusing to tread in the footsteps which our fathers have trodden ? And for what cause would we endanger our glorious Union? The Missouri compromise contains a prohibition of slavery throughout all that vast region extending twelve and a half degrees along the Pacific, from the parallel of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, to that of forty-nine degrees, and east from that ocean to and beyond the summit of the Rocky mountains. Why, then, should our institutions be endangered because it is proposed to submit to the people of the remainder of our newly-acquired territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, embracing less than four degrees of latitude, the question whether, in the language of the Texas compromise, they "shall be admitted [as a state] into the Union with or without slavery." Is this a question to be pushed to such extremities by excited partisans on the one side or the other, in regard to our newly-acquired distant possessions on the Pacific, as to endanger the union of thirty glorious states which constitute our confederacy? I have an abiding confidence that the sober reflection and sound patriotism of the people of all the states will bring them to the conclusion, that the dictate of wisdom is to follow the example of those who have gone before us, and settle this dangerous question on the Missouri compromise, or some other equitable. compromise, which would respect the rights of all, and prove satisfactory to the different portions of the Union.

Holding as a sacred trust the executive authority for the whole Union, and bound to guard the rights of all, I should be constrained, by a sense of duty, to withhold my official sanction from any measure which would conflict with these important objects.

I can not more appropriately close this message than by quoting from the farewell address of the father of his country, His warning voice can never be heard in vain by the American people. If the spirit of prophecy had distinctly presented to his view, more than a half century ago, the present distracted condition of his country, the language which he then employed could not have been more appropriate than it is to the present occasion. He declared :--

"The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty

which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immoveable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and to speak of it as a palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

"For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of AMERICAN, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have, in a common cause, fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and success. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

"In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations-Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts, is, to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You can not shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart-burnings which spring from these misrepresentations. They tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection."

SPECIAL MESSAGE.

DECEMBER 27, 1848.

To the House of Representatives:-

IN compliance with the resolution of the house of the eleventh instant, requesting the president to inform that body "whether he has received any information that American citizens have been imprisoned or arrested by British authorities in Ireland; and, if so, what have been the causes thereof, and what steps have been taken for their release; and, if

not in his opinion inconsistent with public interest, to furnish this house with copies of all correspondence in relation thereto," I communicate herewith a report of the secretary of state, together with the accompanying correspondence upon the subject.

SPECIAL MESSAGE.

JANUARY 29, 1849.

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

I COMMUNICATE, herewith, reports from the secretary of war, and the secretary of the navy, together with the accompanying documents, in answer to a resolution of the house of representatives of December 20th, 1848, requesting the president "to communicate to the house the amount of moneys and property received during the late war with the republic of Mexico at the different ports of entry, or in any other way within her limits, and in what manner the same has been expended or appropriated."

SPECIAL MESSAGE.

FEBRUARY 1, 1849.

To the Senate of the United States :-
·-

I COMMUNICATE herewith reports from the secretary of state, the secretary of the treasury, secretary of war, and the secretary of the navy, together with the accompanying documents, in answer to a resolution of the senate of the 15th of January, 1849, "that the petition and papers of John B. Emerson be referred to the president of the United States, and that he be requested to cause a report thereon to be made to the senate, wherein the public officer making such report shall state in what cases, if any, the United States have used or employed the invention of said Emerson contrary to law; and further, whether any compensation therefor is justly due to said Emerson, and if so, to what amount in each case."

SPECIAL MESSAGE.

FEBRUARY 8, 1849.

To the House of Representatives of the United States :

In reply to the resolutions of the house of representatives, of the 5th instant, I communicate herewith a report from the secretary of state, accompanied with all the documents and correspondence relating to the treaty of peace concluded between the United States and Mexico, at Guadalupe Hidalgo, on the 2d of February, 1848, and to the amendments of the senate thereto, as requested by the house in the said resolutions.

Among the documents transmitted will be found a copy of the instructions given to the commissioners of the United States who took to Mexico

the treaty as amended by the senate and ratified by the president of the United States. In my message to the house of representatives of the 29th of July, 1848, I gave as my reason for declining to furnish these instructions, in compliance with a resolution of the house, that, "in my opinion, it would be inconsistent with the public interests to give publicity to them at the present time." Although it may still be doubted whether giving them publicity in our own country, and, as a necessary consequence, in Mexico, may not have a prejudicial influence on our public interests, yet, as they have been again called for by the house, and called for in connexion with other documents, to the correct understanding of which they are indispensable, I have deemed it my duty to transmit them.

I still entertain the opinion expressed in the message referred to, "that, as a general rule, applicable to all our important negotiations with foreign powers, it could not fail to be prejudicial to the public interest to publish the instructions to our ministers, until some time had elapsed after the conclusion of such negotiations."

In these instructions of the 18th of March, 1848, it will be perceived "that the task was assigned to the commissioners of the United States of consummating the treaty of peace, which was signed at Guadalupe Hidalgo on the second day of February last, between the United States and the Mexican republic, and which, on the 10th of March last, was ratified by the senate with amendments.'

They were informed "that this brief statement will indicate to you clearly the line of your duty. You are not sent to Mexico for the purpose of negotiating any new treaty, or of changing in any particular the ratified treaty which you will bear with you. None of the amendments adopted by the senate can be rejected or modified, except by the authority of that body. Your whole duty will then consist in using every honorable effort to obtain from the Mexican government a ratification of the treaty, in the form in which it has been ratified by the senate, and this with the least practicable delay." "For this purpose, it may, and most probably will, become necessary that you should explain to the Mexican minister for foreign affairs, or to the authorized agents of the Mexican government, the reasons which have influenced the senate in adopting these several amendments to the treaty. This duty you will perform, as much as possible, by personal conferences. Diplomatic notes are to be avoided unless in case of necessity. These might lead to endless discussions and indefinite delay. Besides, they could not have any practical result, as your mission is confined to procuring a ratification, from the Mexican government, of the treaty as it came from the senate, and does not extend to the slightest modification in any of its provisions."

The commissioners were sent to Mexico to procure the ratification of the treaty as amended by the senate. Their instructions confined them to this point. It was proper that the amendments to the treaty adopted by the United States should be explained to the Mexican government, and explanations were made by the secretary of state in his letter of the 18th of March, 1848, to the Mexican minister for foreign affairs, under my direction. This despatch was communicated to Congress with my message of the 6th of July last, communicating the treaty of peace, and published by their order. This despatch was transmitted by our commissioners, from the city of Mexico to the Mexican government, then at Queretaro, on the 17th of April, 1848, and its receipt acknowledged on the 19th of the same month. During the whole time that the treaty, as amended, was before

the Congress of Mexico, these explanations of the secretary of state, and these alone, were before them.

The president of Mexico, on these explanations, on the 8th day of May, 1848, submitted the amended treaty to the Mexican Congress, and, on the 25th of May, that Congress approved the treaty as amended without modification or alteration. The final action of the Mexican Congress had taken place before the commissioners of the United States had been officially received by the Mexican authorities, or held any conference with them, or had any other communication on the subject of the treaty except to transmit the letter of the secretary of state.

In their despatch, transmitted to Congress with my message of the 6th of June last, communicating the treaty of peace, dated "City of Queretaro,, May 25, 1848, 9 o'clock, P. M.," the commissioners say: "We have the satisfaction to inform you that we reached this city this afternoon about 5 o'clock, and that the treaty as amended by the senate of the United States, passed the Mexican senate about the hour of our arrival, by a vote of 33 to 5. It having previously passed the house of deputies, nothing now remains but to exchange the ratifications of the treaty."

On the next day (the 26th of May) the commissioners were, for the first time, presented to the president of the republic, and their credentials placed in his hands. On this occasion the commissioners delivered an address to the president of Mexico, and he replied. In their despatch of the 30th of May, the commissioners say: "We enclose a copy of our address to the president, and also a copy of his reply. Several conferences afterward took place between Messrs. Rosa, Cuevas, Conto, and ourselves, which it is not thought necessary to recapitulate, as we enclose a copy of the protocol, which contains the substance of the conversations. We have now the satisfaction to announce that the exchange of ratifications was effected to-day." This despatch was communicated with my message of the 6th of July last, and published by order of Congress.

The treaty, as amended by the senate of the United States, with the accompanying papers, and the evidence that in that form it had been ratified by Mexico, was received at Washington on the 4th day of July, 1848, and immediately proclaimed as the supreme law of the land. On the 6th of July, I communicated to Congress the ratified treaty, with such accompanying documents as were deemed material to a full understanding of the subject, to the end that Congress might adopt the legislation necessary and proper to carry the treaty into effect. Neither the address of the commissioners, nor the reply of the president of Mexico, on the occasion of their presentation, nor the memorandum of conversations embraced in the paper called a protocol, nor the correspondence now sent, was communicated, because they were not regarded as in any way ma terial; and in this I conformed to the practice of our government. It rarely if ever happens that all the correspondence, and especially the instructions to our ministers, is communicated. Copies of these papers are now transmitted, as being within the resolutions of the house calling for all such "correspondence as appertains to said treaty."

When these papers were received at Washington, peace had been restored, the first instalment of three millions paid to Mexico, the blockades were raised, the city of Mexico evacuated, and our troops on their return home. The war was at an end, and the treaty, as ratified by the United States, was binding on both parties, and already executed in a great degree. In this condition of things it was not competent for the president