Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

VOLUME 1. The State Press IS PUBLISHED EVERY THURSDAY BY EDWIN C. ROWLAND, Proprietor; E. C. & A. M. ROWLAND, Editors. SUBSCRIPTION: Two Dollars per annum in advance, or Three Dol lars at the end of the year. ADVERTISING S One Dollar per Square for the first insertion, and Fifty cents for each subsequent insertion. Liberal arrangements will be made with those who advertise by the year. JOB WORK. Having a new and beautiful supply of job type and one of Gordon's celebrated Power Presses, we are prepared to do any kind of work in this line with neatness, accuracy and dispatch, at moderate prices. PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. Fellow Citizene of the Senate and Haute of Rep reeen tatirze: In obedience to the command of the Consti tution, it lias now bocome my duty to “give i to Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures’’ as 1 judge to be “necessary and expedient” But first., and above all, our thanks arc due to Almighty God tor the numerous benefits which He has bestowed upon this people; and our united prayers ought to ascend to Him that He would continue to bless our great Re public in time to come as He has blessed it in time past. Since the adjournment of the last Congress our constituents have enjoyed an un usual degree of health. The earth lias yielded her fruits abundantly, and has bountifully re warded the toil of the husbandman. Our great staples have commanded high prices, and, up till within a brief period, our manufacturing, mineral, and mechanical occupations have large ly partaken of the general prosterity. We have possessed all the material wealth in rich abundance, and yet, notwithstanding all these advantages, our country, in its monetary inter ests, is at the present moment in a deplorable condition. In the midst of unsurpassed plenty in all the productions of agriculture, and in ail the elements of national wealth, we find our manufactures suspended, our public works re tarded, our private enterprises of different kinds abandoned and thousands of useful laborers thrown out of employment, and reduced to want. The revenue of the Government, which is chiefly derived from duties on imports from abroad, has been greatly reduced, whilst the appropriations made by Congress at its last session for the current fiscal year are very large in amount. Under these circumstances a loan may be re quired before the close of your present session bit this, although deeply to be regretted, i would prove to be only a slight misfortune ' when compared with the suffering and distress prevailing among the people. With this the' government cannot fail deeply to sympathize, though it may be without the power to extend relief. CUiIBEXI V ANO BANKS. It is our duty to enquire what has produced such unfortunate results, and whether their recurrence can be prevented? In all former revulsions the blame might have been fairly at tributed to a variety of co-operating causes; but not so upon the present occasion. It is apparent that our existing misfortunes have proceeded solely from our extravagant ami vic ious system of paper currency and bank cred its, exciting the people to u ild speculations and gambling in stocks. These revulsions must continue to recur at successive intervals so long as the amount of paper currency and bank loans and discount of the country shall lie left to the discretion of fourteen hundred irrespon sible banking institutions, w hich from the very law of their nature w ill consult the interest of the stockholders rather than the public w elfare. The framers of the Constitution, when they gave to Congress the power "to coin money and to regulate the value thereof,” and pro hibited the States from coining money, emit ting bills of credit, or making anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment ot’ debts, supposed they had protected the peo ple against the evils of an excessive and irre deemable paper currency. They are not re sponsible tor the existing anomaly that a gov ernment endowed w ith the sovereign attribute of coining money and regulating the value thereof, should have no power to prevent oth ers from driving thiscoin out of the country and filling up the channels of circulation with pa per which does not represent gold and silver. It i* one of the highest and most responsible dutien of government to insure to the people a sound circulating medium, the amount of which ought to be adapted with the utmost possible wisdom and skill to the w ants of internal trade and foreign exchanges. If this be either great ly above or greatly below the proper standard, the marketable value of every man's property is increased or diminished in tin- same propor tion, and injustice to individuals, as well as in calculable evils to the community are the con sequence. Unfortunately, under the construction of the Federal Constitution, which lias now pre vailed Un> long to be changed, this important and delicate duty has been disserved from the coining power, and virtually transferred to more than fourteen hundred State banks, act ing independently of each other, and regulating their paper issues almost exclusively, by a re gard to the present interest of their stockhold ers. Exercising the sovereign power of pro viding a paper currency, instead of coin, for the country, the first duty which these banks owe to the public, is to keep in their vaults a suffi cient amount of gold and silver to insure the convertibility of their notes into coin at all times and under all circumstance 1 N o bank ought ever to be chartered without such re strictions on its business as to secure this re sult. All other restrictions are comparatively vain. This is the only true touchstone, the on ly efficient, regulator of a paper currency—the only one which can guard the public against over issue* and bank suspensions. As a eulla teral and eventual security, it is doubtless wise, mid in a cases ought to be required, that banks shall hold an amount of United States securi ties equal to their notes in circulation, and pledged tor their redemption. This, however, furnishes no adequate security against over issues. On the contrary, it may be perverted to inflate the currency. Indeed it is possible by this means to convert all the debts of the United Sfotes apd State government into bunk notes, withoqt reference to tl|p specie required to redeem them. However valqabje these se curities may be in themselves, they cgni|ot be converted into gold and silver at the moment of pressure, as our exjierience teaches, in suffi cient time to prevent bank suspensions and the depreciation of bank uufos, la England, which is to a considerable extent a paper-money country, though vastly behind our own in tfii's respect, it was deeined advisable, anterior to the act of Parliament of 1644, which w isely separated the issue of notes from the banking department, for the Bank of England always State to keep on hand gold and silver equal to one third of its combined circulation and deposites. If this proportion was no more than sufficient to secure the convertibility of its notes, with the whole of Great Britain and to some ex tent the continent of Europe, as afield for its circulation, rendering it almost impossible that a sudden and immediate, run to a dangerous amount shoul be made upon it, the same pro portion would certainly be insufficient under our bankingsystem. Each of ourfourteen hun dred bunks has but a limited circumference for its circulation, and in the course of a very few days the depositors and note-holders might de mand from such a bank a sufficient amount in specie to compel it to suspend, even although it bad coin in its vaults equal to one-third of its immediate liabilities. And yet I aiu not aware, with the exception of the banks of Louisiana, that any State bank throughout the Union lias been required by its charter to keep this or any other proportion of gold and silver compared with the amount of its combined cir culation and deposites. What has been the consequence ? In a recent report made by the Treasury department on the condition of the banks throughout the different States, according to returns dated nearest to January, 1857, the aggregate amount of actual specie in their vaults is $58,349,838 of their circulation $214,- 778,822, and of their deposites $230,351,352, Thus it appears that these banks in the aggre gate have considerably less than one dollar in seven of gold and silver, compared with their circulation and deposits. It was palpable, therefore, that the very first pressure must drive them to suspension, and deprive the people of a controvertible currency with all its disas trous consequences. It is truly wonderful that they should have so long continued to preserve their credit, when a demand for the payment of one-seventh of their immediate li abilities would have driven them into insolven cy. And this is the condition of the banks, notwithstanding that four hundred millions of gold from California have flowed in upon us within the last eight years, and the tide still continues to flow ; indeed such has been the extravagance ot bank credits that the banks now hold a considerably less amount of specie, either in proportion to their capital or to their circulation and deposits combined, than they did before the discovery ot gold in California. Whilst in the year 1848 their specie in propor tion to their capital was more than equal to one dollar for four and a half, in 1857 it does not amount to one dollar for every six dollars and thirty-three cents of their capital. In the year 1846 the specie was equal, within a very small fraction, to one dollar in five to their cir culation and deposites; in 1858 it is not equal to one dollar in seven and a half of their circu lation and deposits. From this statement it is easy to account for our financial history for the last forty v "ars.— It has been a history of extravagant expansions in the business of the country, followed by ruinous contractions. At successive intervals the best and most enterprising men have been tempted to their ruin by excessive bank loans of mere paper credit exciting them to extrava gant importations of foreign goods, wild specu lations. and ruinous and demoralizing stock gambling. When the crisis arrives, as arrive it must, the banks can extend no relief to the people. In a vain struggle to redeem their liabilities in specie they are compelled to con tract their loans and their issues; and at last, in the hour of distress, w hen their assistance is most needed, they and their debtors together sink into insolvency. It is this paper system of extravagant expul sion, raising the nominal price of every article far beyond its real value, when compared w ith the cost of similar articles in countries whose! circulation is wisely regulated, which has pre vented us from competing in our own markets with foreign manufacturers, has produced ex travagant importations, has counteracted the effect of the large incidental protection afford ed to our domestic manufactures by the present revenue tariff But for this the branches of our manufactures composed of raw materials, the production of our own country —such as cotton, iron and woolen fabrics—w ould not on ly have acquired almost exclusive possession of' the home market, but would have created for themselves a foreign market throughout the ' world. Deplorable, however, as may be our present financial condition, we may yet indulge in bright hopes for the future. No other nation I has ever existed that could have endured such violent expansions and contractions of paper credits without lasting injury ; yet the buoyan cy of youth, the energies of our population, and the spirit which never quails before difficulties, w ill enable us soon to recover from our present financial embarrassments, and may even oeca sion ussjH'edily to forget the lesson which they have taught. In the meantime, it is the duty of the Gov ernment, by all proper means within its power, to aid in alleviating the sufferings of the people occasioned by the suspension ot the banks, and to provide against a recurrence of the same ca lamity. Unfortunately, in either asjiect of the case, it ean do but little. Thanksto the independent treasury, the Government has not suspended payment, as it was compelled to do by the fail ure of the banks in 1837. It will continue to discharge its liabilities to the people in gold and silver. Its disbursements in coin w ill pass into circulation, and materially assist in restor ing a sound currency. From its high credit, should we be compelled to make a temporary loan, it can be effected on advantageous terms. This, however, shall, if possible, be avoided; but. if not, then the amount shall be limited to the lowest practicable sum. 1 have, therefore, determined that whilst no useful government works already in progress shall be suspended, new’ works, not already commenced, will be postponed, if this can be done without injury to the country. Thosene cessary for its defence shall proceed as though there had been ..o crisis in our money af fairs. But the federal government cannot do much to provide against a recurrence of existing evils. Even if insurmountable objections did not exist against the creation of a National Bank, this would furnish no adequate prevent tive security. The history of the last Bank of the I nitvd Mates abundantly proves the truth of this assertion. Such a bank eould not. if it , would, regulate the issues and credits of four teen hundred State banks, in such a manner as to prevent the ruinous expansions and contrac tions in our curret. y, which afflicted the coun try throughout the existence of the lute bank, or secure us against further suspensions. In 1825, an effort was made by the Bank of Eng land tocurtail the issues of the country banks. ! under the most favorable circumstances. Ibe paper currency had been expanded to a ruinous extent, and the bank put forth all its power to contract it, in order to reduce prices, and re store the equilibrium of the foreign exchanges. It accordingly commenced a system of curtail ment of its loans and issues, hi the vain hope that the joint stock and private banks of the kingdom would be eumpctlcd to follow its ex ample. It found, however, that ns it contract ed, (hey expanded, and at the end of the pro cess. to employ the language of a very high of ficial authority, “whatever reduction of the pa per circulation was effected by the Bank of MACON, GEORGIA, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1857. England (in 1825) was more than made up by the issues of the country banks.” But a Bank of the United States would not, if it could, restrain the issues and loans of the State banks, because its duty as a regulator of the currency, must be often in direct conflict with the immediate interest of its stockholders. If we expect one agent to restrain or control another, their interests must, at least in some degree, be antagonistic. But the directors of a Bank of the United States would feel the same interest and the same inclination with the directors of the State banks to expand the cur rency, accommodate their favorites and friends with loans, and to declare large dividends. Such has been our experience in regard to the last bank. After all. we must mainly rely upon the pat riotism and wisdom of the States for the pre vention and redress of the evil. If they will afford us a r >al specie basis for our paper cir culation, by increasing the denomination of bank notes, first to twenty, and afterwards to fifty dollars; if they will require that the banks shall at all times keep on hand at least one dollar of gold and silver for every three dollars of their circulation and deposits; and if they will provide, by a self-executing enact ment, which nothing ean arrest, that the mo ment they suspend they shall go into liquida tion, I believe that such provisions, with a weekly publication by each bank of a state ment of its condition, w ould go far to secure us against future suspensions of specie pay ments. Congress, in my opinion, possesses the pow - er to pass a uniform bankrupt law applicable to all banking institutions throughout the Uni ted States, and I strongly recommend its exer cise. This would make it the irreversible or ganic law of each bank’s existence, that a sus pension of specie payments shall produce its civil death. The instinct of self-prerervation would then compel it to perform its duties in such a manner as to escape the penalty and preserve its life. The existence of banks, and the circulation of bank paper are so identified w ith the habits of our people, that they cannot at this day be suddenly abolished w ithout much immediate injury to the country. If we could confine them to their appropriate sphere and prevent them from administering to the spirit of wild and reckless speculation by extravagant loans and issues, they might be continued with ad vantage to the public. But this I say, after long and much reflec tion; if experience shall prove it to be impos sible to enjoy the facilities which well regula ted banks might afford, without at the same time suffering the calamities w hich the excesses of the banks have hitherto inflicted upon the country, it would then be far the lesser evil to deprive them altogether of the power to issue a paper currency and confine them to the func tions of banks of deposit and discount. RELATIONS WITH FOIIEIGN GOVEIINMKSTS. Our relations w ith foreign governments are, upon the whole, in a satisfactory condition. The diplomatic difficulties which existed be tween the government of the United States and that of Great Britain at the adjournment of the last Congress have been happily terminated by the appointment of a British ministcb to this country, w bo has been cordially received. Whilst it is greatly to the interest, as 1 am convinced it is the sincere desire of the govern ments and people of the two countries to be on terms of intimate friendship w ith each other, it has been our misfortune almost always to have had some irritating, if not dangerous, out standing question w ith Great Britain. Since the origin of the government we have been employed in negotiation treaties with that power, and afterwards ill discussing their true intent and meaning. In this respect, the con vention of April 19. 1850. commonly called the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, has been the most unfortunate of all; because the two govern ments place directly opposite and contradicto ry constructions upon its first and most impor tant article. Whilst, in the United States, we believed that this treaty would place both pow ers upon an exact equality by the stipulations that neither will ever “occupy, or fortify, or colonize, or assume, or exercise any dominion,” over any part of Central America, it is contend ed by the British Government that the true construction of this language has left them in the rightful possession of all that portion of Central America which was in their occupancy at the date of the treaty; in fact, that the treaty is a virtual recognition on the part of the United States of the right of Great Britain, either as owner or protector, to the whole ex tensive coasts of Central America, sweeping round from the Rio llonde to the port and har bor of San Juan de Nicaragua, together with the adjacent Bay Islands, except the compara tively small portion of this between the Sars toon and Cape Honduras. According to their construction, the treaty does no more than simply prohibit them from extending their possessions in Central Ameri ca beyond the present limits. It is not too much to assert, that it in the U nited States the treaty had been considered susceptible of such a construction, it never w ould have been ne gotiated under the authority of the President, nor would it have received the approbation of the Senate. The universal conviction in the United States was. that when our government consented to violate its traditional and time honored policy, and to stipulate with a foreign government never to occupy territory in the Central American portion of our own conti nent, the consideration tor this sacrifice was that Great Britain should, in this respect at least, be placed in the same position w ith our selves. Whilst we have no right to doubt the sincerity of the British government in their construction of the treaty, it is at the same time my deliberate conviction that this con struction is in opposition both to its letter and its spirit. Under the lute administration, negotiations were instituted between the two governments for the purpose, if possible, of removing these difficulties; and a treaty having this laudable object in view was signed at London on the 17th of October, 1856, and was submitted by the I’resident to the Senate on the following loth of December. W hetlier this treaty, either ■ in its original or amended form, w ould have accomplished the object intended w ithout giv ing birth to new and embarrassing complica tions between the two governments, may. per haps. lie well questioned. Certain it is. how ever, it was rendered much less objectionable by the different amendments made to it by the Senate. The treaty, as amended, was ratified by me on the 12th of March. 1857, and was transmitted to London for ratification by the British Government. That Government ex pressed its willingness to concur in all the amendments made by the Senate, w ith the sin gle exception of the clause relating to Ruatan mid the other islands in the Bay of Honduras. Die article in the original treaty, as submitted to the Senate, after reciting that these islands and tlieir inhabitants, " having been by a con vention bearing date the 27th day of August. 1856, between her Britanic Majesty and the Republic of Honduras, constituted and declared # free Territory under the sovereignty of the said Republie of Honduras," stipulated that “ the two contracting parties do hereby mu tually engage to recognize and respect, in ail ’ future time, the independence and rights of the said free Territory as a part of the Republic of i Honduras.” Upon an examination of the convention be tween Great Britain and Honduras of the 27th August, 1856. it was found that, w liilst declar ing the Bay Islands to be a “ free territory un der the sovereignty of the Republic of Hondu ras,” it deprived that Republic of rights with out which its sovereignty over them could scarcely be said to exist. It divided them from the remainder of Honduras, and gave to their inhabitants a separate government of their own, with legislative, executive, and Judicial offi cers, elected by themselves. It deprived the government of Honduras of the taxing power in every form, and exempted the people of the islands from the |wrtoru».M* of military duty, I except for tlieir own exclusive defence. It al ; so prohibited that Republic from erecting for tifications upon them for their own protection —thus leaving them open to invasion from any quarter; and. finally, it provided "that slavery i shall not, at any time hereafter, be permitted to exist therein.” Had Honduras ratified this convention, she would have ratified the establishment of a State substantially independent within her limits, and a State at all times subject to British influ ence and control. Moreover, iiad the United States ratified the treaty with Great Britain in its original form, we should have been bound “to recognise and respect in all future time” these stipulations to the prejudice of Honduras. Being in direct opposition to the spirit and meaning of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty as understood in the United States, the Senate re jected the entire clause, and substituted in its stead a simple recognition of the sovereign right of Honduras to these islands in the following language: “The two contracting parties do hereby mutually engage to recognize and re spect the islands of Ruatan, Conaco, Utila, Bar • baretta. Helena and Morat,. situate in the Bay of Honduras, and off’ the coast of the republic of Honduras, as under the sovereignty and as part of the said republic ot Honduras." Great Britain rejected this amendment, as signing as the only reason, that the ratifications I of the convention of the 27th August. 185 G, be -1 tween her and Honduras, hail not been "ex changed, owing to the hesitation of that gov ernment.” Had this been done, it is stated , that "her Majesty’s government would have had little difficulty in agreeing to the mollifica tion projiosed by the Senate, which then would have had in effect the same signification as the original wording.” Whether this would have been the effect; whether the mere circum stances of the exchange of the ratifications of the British convention with Honduras prior in point ot time to the ratification of our treaty with Great Britain would “in effect.” have had "the same signification as the original word ing,” and thus have nullified the amendment of the Scutate, may well be doubted. It is, per haps, fortunate that the question has never arisen. But the British government, immediately af ter rejecting the treaty as amended, proposed to cuter into a new treaty with the United ; States, similarin all respects to the treaty which they had just refused to ratify, if the United States would consent to add to the Senate’s clear and qualified recognition of the sovereign ty of Honduras over the Bay Islands the fol- ' lowing conditional stipulation : “ Whenever and so soon as the Republic of Honduras shall have concluded and ratified a treaty w ith Great Britain, by w hich Great Britain shall have ce- ■ ded, and the Republic of Honduras shall have accepted, the said islands, subject to the pro- i visions and conditions contained in such treaty.” I This proposition was, of course, rejected. 1 Arter the Senate had refused to recognize the British convention with Honduras ot the 27th of August, 1856, with full knowledge of its contents, it was impossible for me, necessarily ignorant of “the pi o visions and conditions” which might be contained in a future conven tion between the same parties, to sanction them in advance. The fact is, that when two nations, like Great Britain and the United States, mutually desi rous. as they are, and I trust ever may be, of maintaining the most friendly relations with each other, have unfortunately concluded a treaty which they understand in sense directly ; opposite, the wisest course is to abrogate such I a treaty by mutual consent, and to commence anew. Had this been done promptly, all diffi- I culties in Central America would most proba- I bly ere this have been adjusted to the satisfac tion of both parties. The time spent in discus sing the meaning of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty would have been devoted to this praise worthy purpose, and the task would have been the more easily accomplished, because the in terest of the two countries in Central America is identical, being confined to securing safe transits over all the routes across the isthmus. Whilst entertaining these sentiments, I shall ’ nevertheless not refuse to contribute to any reasonable adjustment of the Central American questions which is not practically inconsistant with the American interpretation of the treaty. Overtures tor this purpose have been recently made by the British government in a friendly spirit, which I cordially reciprocate; but wheth ! er this renewed effort will result in success, 1 am not yet prepared to express an opinion. A brief period will determine. With France our ancient relations of friend ship still continue to exist. The French gov- I eminent have in several recent instances, which need not be enumerated, evinced a spirit of good will and kindness towards our country, which I heartily reciprocate. It is, notwith standing, much to be regretted thut two na tions w hose productions are of such a character as to invite the most extensive exchanges and freest commercial intercourse, should continue to enforce ancient and obsolete restrictions of trade against each other. Our commercial treaty with France is in this respect an excep tion from our treaties with all other commercial nations. It jealously levies discriminating du ties both on tonnage and on articles, the growth, produce, or manufacture of the one country, w hen arriving in vessels belonging to the other. More than forty years ago, on the 3d March, 1815 Congress passed an act offering to nil na tions to admit their vessels laden w ith their national productions into the ports of the Uni . ted States upon the same terms with our own vessels, provided they would reciprocate to us siluiliar advantages. This act confined the reciprocity to the productions of the respec tive foreign nutions who might enter into the proposed arrangement with the United States. The act of May 24, 1828, removed this restric tion, and offered a similar reciprocity to all such vessels without reference to the origin of their cargoes. Upon these principles, our com mercial treaties and arrangements have l>een founded, except with France ; and let us hope that this exception may not long exist. Our relations with Russia remain, as they have ever been, on the most friendly footing. The present Emperor, as well as his predeces sors. have never failed, when the occasion of fered, to manifest their gisal will to our coun try; and their friendship has always been ap preciated by the government and |>eople of the United States. With all other European governments, ex cept thut of Spain, our relations are as peaceful as we could desire. I regret to say that no progress whatever has been made since the ad journment of Congress, towards the settlement of any of the numerous claims of our citizens against the Spanish government. Besides, the outrage committed on our flag by the Spanish war frigate Serrolana on the high sea. off the coast of Cuba, in March, 1855, by firing into I the American mail steamer El Dorado, and de i tabling and searching her. remains unackuow- ■ ledged and unredressed. The general tone and temper of the Spanish government towards that I of the United States arc much to lie regretted. Our present envoy extraordinary and minister ■ plenipotentiary to Madrid has asked to be re- ■ called; and it is my purpose to send out a new minister to Spain, w ith special instructions on all questions [lending between the two govern ments. and with a determination to have them ' speedily and amicably adjusted, if this be pos i silde. In the mean time, whenever our minister urges the just claims of our citizens on the no tice of the Spanish government, he is met with the objections that Congress have never made the appropriation recommended by President Polk in his annual message of December, 1347, “to be paid to the Spanish government for the purpose of distribution among the claimants in the Armistead case." A similar recommenda ' tion was made by my immediate predecessor in the message of December, 1853 ; and entire ly concurring with both in the opinion that this indemnity is justly due under the treaty with Spain of the 27th of October, 1795, 1 earnestly recommend such an appropriation to the favorable consideration of Congress. A treaty of friendship and commerce was concluded at Constantinople on the 13th De cember, 185 G, between the United States and Persia, the ratifications of which were exchang ed at Constantinople on the 13th June, 1857, and thy treaty was proclaimed by the Presi dent on the 18th August, 1857. This treaty it is believed, will prove beneficial to Ameri can commerce. The Shah has manifested an earnest disposition to cultivate friendly rela tions with our country, and has expressed a strong wish that we should lie represented at Teheran by a minister plenipotentiary, and 1 recommend that an appropriation be made for this purpose. Recent occurrences in China have been un favorable to a revision of’the treaty with that empire of the 3rd of July, 1844, with a view to the security and extension of our commerce. The 24th article of this treaty stipulated for a revision of it in case experience should prove this to be requisite: “in which case the two governments will, at the expiration of twelve years from the date of said convention, treat amicably concerning the same, by means of suitable persons appointed to condui t such ne gotiations.” These twelve years expired on the 3rd of July. 1856 ; but long before that period' it was ascertained that important changes in the treaty were necessary ; and several fruit less attempts were made by the commissioners of the United States to effect these changes. ! Another effort was about to be made for the same purpose by onr commissioner in coujunc i tion with the ministers of England and France, but this was suspended by the occurrence of , hostilities in the Canton river between Great I Britain and the Chinese empire. These hos ! tilities have necessarily interrupted the trade I of all nations with Canton, which is now in a state of blockade, and have occasioned a serious j loss of life and property. Meanwhile the in surrection within the empire against the ex isting imperial <ly nasty still continues; audit I is difficult to anticipate what will be the result. ■ Under these circumstances, I have deemed it advisable to appoint a distinguished citizen of Pennsylvania envoy extraordinary and minis ter plenipotentiary to proceed to China, und to avail himself of any opportunity which may offer to effect changes in the existing treaty fa vorable to American commerce. He left the United States for the place ofhis destination in July last, in the war steamer Minnesota. Spe cial ministers to China have also been appoint ed by the governments of Great Britain and Frame. Whilst our ministers has been instructed to occupy a neutral jiosition in reference to the existing hostilities at Canton, be w ill cordially co-operate with the British and French minis ters in all peaceful measures to secure by treaty stipulations those just concessions to commerce which the nations of the w orld have a right to expect, and which China cannot long lie per mitted to withhold. From assurances received 1 entertain no doubt that the three ministers w ill act in harmonious concert to obtain simi lar commercial treaties fur each of the powers they represent. We cannot fail to take a deep interest in all that concerns the welfare of the independent republics on our own continent, as well as of the empire of Brazil. Our difficulties with New Granada, which a short time since bore so threatening an aspect, are, it is to be ho|icd, in a fair train of settle ment, in a manner just and honorable to both parties. The isthmus of Central America, including that of Panama, is the great highway between the Atlantic and Pacific, over which a larger port ion of the commerce of the w orld isdestin , ed to pass. The United States are more deeply interested than any other nation in preserving the freedom and security of all the communica tions across this isthmus. It is our duty, there fore. to take care that they shall not be inter rupted, either by invasions from our own coun try or by wars between the Independent States ■of Central America. Under our treaty with New Grenada, on the 12tli of December, 1846, we are bound to guarantee the neutrality of the Isthmus of Panama, through which the Pana ma railroad passes, “as well as the rights of sovereignty, and property which New Granada has and possesses over the said Territory.”— This obligation is founded upon equivalents granted by the treaty to the government und people of the United States. Under these circumstances, I recommend to I Congress the passage of an act authorizing the President, in case of necessity, to employ the land and naval forces of the United States, to carry into effect this guarantee of neutrality and protection. 1 also recommend similar leg islation for the security of any other route across the Isthmus, in w hich we may acquire un in terest by treaty. With the independent republics on this con tinent, it is both our duty and our interest to cultivate the most friendly relations. We can never feel indifferent to their fate, und must al ways rejoice in their prosfierity. Unfortunate ly, both tor them and for us, our example and advice have lost much of their influence in cou i sequence of the lawless expeditions which have been fitted out against some of them w ithin the limits of our country. Nothing is better cal ; culated to retard our steady material progress, or impair our character as a nation, than the toleration of such enterprises in violation of the law of nations. It is one of the first and highest duties of any independent Mate, in its relations with the members of the great family of nations, to re strain its people from acts of hostile aggres sions against their citizens or subjects. The most eminent writers on public laws do not hesitate to denounce such hostile acts as rob -1 bery and murder. Weak and feeble States, like those of Cen tral America, may not feel themselves able to assert and vindicate their rights. The case would be far different if expeditions were set on foot within our own territories to make a I private war against a powerful nation. If such expeditions were fitted out from abroad against any portion of our own country, to burn down our cities, murder and plunder the people, and usurp our government, we should call any pow er on earth to the strictest account for not pre venting such enormities. walker’s EXI’KIIITION. Ev r since the administration of General Washington, acts of Congress have been in force tn punish severely the crime of setting on foot a military expedition within the limits of the United States, to proceed from thence against a nation or State with whom wo are at peace. The present neutrality act, of April 20th, 1818, is but little more than a collection of pre-existing laws. Under this ai-t the Pres ident is eni|H«wered to employ the land and naval forces, and the militia “for the purpose of preventing the carrying on of any such ex pedition or enterprise, from the territories and jurisdiction of the United States.” and tiie col lectors of customs are authorized and required to detain any vessel in port when there is rea- | son to believe she is about to take part in such ' lawless enterprises. When it wa« first rendered probable that an attempt would be made to get up another un lawful expedition against Nicaragua, the Secre tary of State issued instructions to the marshals and district attorneys, w hich were directed by the Secretaries ot War and the Navy to the appropriate army and navy officers, requiring i them to be vigilant, and to use tlieir best exer- : tions in carrying into effect the provisions of 1 the net of 1818. Notwithstanding these pre- ■ cautions, the expedition has escaped from our shores. Such enterprises can do no possible good to the country, but have already inflicted much Injury both on its interests and its character. They have prevented peaceful em igration from the United States to the States of Central America, which could not fail to prove highly beneficial to all the parties concerned. In a pecuniary po’ntof view alone ' our citizens have sustained heavy losses from ■ the seizure and closing of the tram it route by ' San Juan between the two oceans. The leader of the recent expedition was ar- 1 rested at New Orleans, but was discharged on I giving bail for his appearance in the insufficient ■ sum of two thousand dollars. I commend the whole subject to the serious ; attention of Congress, believing that our duty i and our interest, us well as our until mil char- I aeter, require that we sh< ul 1 attempt such ; measures us will be effectual in restraining our citizens from committing such outrages. 1 regret to inform you that the I’resident of Paraguay has refused to ratify the treaty be tween the United States and thut State us umended by the Senate, the signature of w hieh which was mentioned in the message of my predecessor to Congress at the opening of its session in December 1853. The reasons as signed for this refusal w ill api ear in the corres pondence herewith submitted. It being desirable to ascertain the fitness of the river I.a Plata ami its tributaries for navi gation by steam, the United States steamer W ater U itch w us sent thither for that purpose in 1853. ibis enterprise was successfully car ried on until February, 1855. when, whilst in the peaceful prosecution of her voyage up the Parana river, the steamer was tired ujiou by a 1 a Paragnun fort. The fire was returned ; but I us the Water M itch was of small force, and not ; designed for offensive operations, she retired ! from the conflict. The pretext upon w hidi the attack was made wus u decree of the President of Paraguay of October 1854, prohibiting for eign vessels of war from navigating the rivers of that State. As Paraguay, however, was u the owner of but one bank of the river of that name, the other belonging to Correientes. a State of the Argentine Confederation, the right of its gc - ernnient to expect that such a decree would be i obeyed cannot be acknowledged. Hut the ! Water Witch was not properly speaking, a, vessel of w ar. She was a small steamer engag- 1 ed in scientific enterprise’, intended for the ud- I vantage of commercial States generally. Un der these circumstances, 1 am constrained to , consider the attack upon her as unjustifiable. ; and as calling for satisfaction from the Parag uayan government. Citizens of the United States also, who were ! established in business in Paraguay, have had tlieir property seized and taken from them, and have otherwise been treated by theiuitbor- • ities in an insulting and arbitrary manner, which require redress. A demand for these purposes w ill be made I in a firm but conciliatory spirit. This will the more probably be granted, if the Executive ' shall have the authority to use other means in I the event of a refusal. This is accordingly ' recommended. KANSAS. It is unnecessary to state in detail the alarm . ing condition of the Territory of Kansas at the time of my inauguration. The opposing par ties then stood in hostile array against each other, and any accident might have relighted the flames of civil war. Besides, atfhis criti cal moment, Kansas was left without a Gov ernor by the resignation of Governor Geary. On the 19th of February previous, the terri torial legislature had passed a law providing for the election of delegates on the third Mon day of June, to a convention to meet on the i first Monday of September, for the purpose of framing a Constitution, preparatory to admis sion into the Union. This law was in themain fair and just: and it is to be regretted that all the qualified electors had not registered them- ■ selves and voted under its provisions. At the time of the election for delegates an extensive organization existed in the Territory, whose avowed object it was, if need be, to put , down the lawful government by force, and to 1 establish a government of their own under the ' so-called Tiqieka Constitution. The persons attach.*] to this revolutionary organization ab stained from taking any part in the election. The aet of the territorial legislature had omitted to provide for submitting to- the peo ple the Constitution which might be framed by the Convention, and in the excited state of public feeling throughout Kansas an apprehen sion extensively prevailed that a design existed to force upon them a Constitution in relation to slaveay against their will. In this emergen cy it became my duty, us it was my unques tionable right, having in view the union of all good citizens in support of the territorial law s, to express an opinion on the true construction of the provisions concerning slavery contained in the organic act of Congress of the 30th May. 1854. Congress declared it to be “the true i intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to ex- I elude it therefrom, but to leave the people | thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way." Un der it. Kai.-as, "when admitted as a State,” was to lie “ received into the Union with or w ithout slavery, as their Constitution may pre scribe at the time of their admission.” Did Congress mean by this language that the delegates elected to frame a Constitution should ; have authority finally to decide the question of slavery, or did they intend by leaving it to the people that the people of Kansas themselves should decide this question by a direct vote? On this subject 1 confess I had never entertain ed a serious doubt, and, therefore, in my in structions to Gov. Walker of the 28th of March last. 1 merely said that when “aConstitution shall bo submitted to the people of the Territo- N EMBER 9. ry, they must be protected in the exercise of tlieir right of voting for or against that instru , ment, and the fair expression of the popular will must not be interrupted by fraud or vio lence. In expressing this opinion it was far from my intention to interfere with the decision of the people of Kansas, either for or against ! slavery. From tills I have always carefully abstained. Intrusted with the duty of taking "care that the laws be faithfully executed” my only desire w«s that the people of Kansas should furnish to Congress the evidence re quired by the organic act whether for or against , slavery ; and in this manner smooth their pas sage into the Union. In emerging from the ' condition of territorial dependence into that of a sovereign State, it was their duty, in my opinion, to make known their will by the vote's oi the majority, on the direct question w hetlier ! this important domestic institution should or i should not continue to exist. Indeed, this was ; the only possible mode in w hieh their will could ! be authentically ascertain* d. The election of delegates to a convention must necessarily take place in separate dis tricts. From this cause it may readily hap pen, as has often been the case, thut a majori ot the people of a State or Territory are on one side of a question, whilst a majority of tl.erepre s.ntutives from the several districts into which |it is divided may be upon the other side. This i arises from the fact that in some districts dele ' gates may be elected by small n iyorilies, whilst in others those of different sentiments may re ceive majorities sufficiently great not only to overcome the votes given for fciie former, "but to leave a large inujority of the whole people in direct opposition to the majority of the dele gates. Besides, our history proves that influ ences may be brought to bea. on the represen tative sufficiently powerful to induce him to disregard the will of his constituents. The truth is. that no other authentic and satisfacto ry mode exists of ascertaining the will of a ma ' jority of the people of any Mate or Territory i on an important and exciting question like that of slavery in Kansas, except by leaving it to a direct vote. How wise, then, was it for ■ Congress to pass over all subordinate and in- I termediate agencies and proceed directly to the . source of all legitimate power uuder our insti tutions 1 How vain would any other principle prove in practice! Ibis may be illustrated by the ease ot Kansas. Should she be admitted into the Inion, with a Constitution cither main taining or abolishing slavery, against the sen timent ot the [ieople. this could have no other effect than to continue and to exasperate the existing agitation during the brief perils! re quired to make the Constitution conform to the irresistabk- w ill of the majority. The friends and supporters of the Nebraska and Kansas act, when struggling on a recent occasion to sttsla n its w ise provisions before the great tribunal of the American people, never dif fered about it. true meaning on this subject. Every w here throughout the Union, they pub licly pledged their faith and their honor, that they would cheerfully submit the question of shivery to the decision of the bona fide peo ple of Kansu.., w itbout any restriction or quali fication whatever. All were cordially united Upon the great doctrine of popular sovereignty, which is the vital principle of our free institu tions. Had it then been insinuated from any quar ter that it would be a sufficient compliance with the requisition of the organic law for tiie members of a convention, thereafter to be elec ted, to w ithhold the question of slavery from the people, and to substitute their owu will forthat oi a legally ascertained majority of all their constituents, this would have been in stantly rejected. Everywhere they remained true to the resolution adopted on a celebrated occasion, recognizing “the rights of the people of nil the Territories—including Kansas and Nebraska—acting through the legally und fair ly expressed will of a majority of actual resi dents, and w henever the number of their in habitants justifies it, to form a Constitution, with or w ithout slavery, and be admitted into the 1 niou upon terms of perfect equality with the other States.” _ The Convention to frame a Constitution for Kansas, met on the first Monday of September hist. 1 hey w ere called together by virtue of an act ot the territorial legislature, whose law ful existence had been recognized by Congress in different forms and by different enactments. A large proportion of the citizens of Kansas did not think proper to register their names and to vote at the election for delegates; but an opportunity to do this having been fairly ntforded. their refusal to avail themselves of their right could in no manner affect the legal ity of the Convention. Ibis convention proceeded to frame a Con stitution tor Kansas, and finally adjourned on the 7th day of November. But little difficulty occurred in the convention, except on the sub ject of slavery. The truth is, that the general provisions of our recent State Constitutions are so similar—and, I may add, so excellent—that the difference between them is not essential. I nder the earlier practice of the government, no Constitution framed by the Convention of a Territory preparatory to its admission into the I nion as a State, had been submitted to the people. 1 trust, however, the example set by the last Congress, requiring that the Consti tution of Minnesota "should be subject to Uu approval and ratification of the people of the proposed State,” may be followed un future occasions. 1 took it for granted that the Con vention of Kansas would act in accordance with this example, founded, as it is, on correct principles; and hence uiy hist ructions to Gov ernor Walker, in favor of submitting the Con stitution to the people, were expressed in gen eral and unqualified terms. In the Kansas Nebraska act, however, this requirement, as applicable to the whole Consti tution, had not t een inserted, and the Con vention were not bound by its tcruis to submit any other jmrtion of the instrument to au elec tion. except that which relates to the “domes tic institution’’ of slavery. This w ill be rvu dered clear by a simple reference to its lan guage. it was “not to legislate slavery i*tv any Territory or State, nor to exclude it there from, but to leave the people thereof perfectly tree to form and regulate their domestic insti tutions in their owu way." According to the plain construction of the sentence the words “domestic institutions” have a direct, as they have an appropriate, reference to slavery.— “Domestic institutions” are limited to the fam ily. The relation between master and sJavy and a few others, are “domestic institutions,” ami are entirely distinct from institutions of a political character. Besides, there was no question then before Congress, nor indeed has there since been any serious question before the jieople of Kansas or the country, except that which relates to the “domestic institution ’ of slavery. The Convention, alter an angry and excited debate, finally determined, by a majority of only two, to submit the question of slavery tv the people, though, at the last, forty-three oi the fifty delegates presept affixed their signa tures to the Constitution, A large majority of the Convention were in favor of establishing slavery in Kansas. They accordingly inserted au article in the Cvnstitu tion for this purpose similar in form to these [CMTiyriD ON SICOND FAG£.J