and Minister Plenipotentiary to Madrid has asked to be recalled; and it is my purpose to send out a new Minister to Spain, with special instructions on all questions pending between the two Governments, and with a determination to have them speedily and amicably adjusted, if this be possible. In the meantime, whenever our Minister urges the just claims of our citizens on the notice of the Spanish Government, he is met with the objection that Congress has never made the appropriation recommended by President Polk, in his Annual Message of December, 1847, "to be paid to the Spanish Government for the purpose of distribution among the claimants in the Amistad case." A similar recommendation was made by my immediate predecessor, in his Message of December, 1853; and entirely concurring with both in the opinion that this indemnity is justly due under the Treaty with Spain of the 27th of October, 1795,* I earnestly recommend such an appropriation to the favourable consideration of Congress.

A Treaty of Friendship and Commerce was concluded at Constantinople on the 13th December, 1856,† between The United States and Persia, the ratifications of which were exchanged at Constantinople on the 13th June, 1857, and the Treaty was proclaimed by the President on the 18th August, 1857. This Treaty, it is believed, will prove beneficial to American commerce. The Shah has manifested an earnest disposition to cultivate friendly relations with our country, and has expressed a strong wish that we should be represented at Teheran by a Minister Plenipotentiary; and I recommend that an appropriation be made for this purpose.

Recent occurrences in China have been unfavourable to a revision of the Treaty with that Empire of the 3rd July, 1844, with a view to the security and extension of our commerce. Article XXIV 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 conduct such negotiations." These twelve years expired on the 3rd July, 1856; but long before that period it was ascertained that important changes in the Treaty were necessary; and several fruitless attempts were made by the Commissioner of The United States to effect these changes. Another effort was about to be made for the same purpose by our Commissioner, in conjunction with the Ministers of England and France, but this was suspended by the occurrence of hostilities in the Canton River between Great Britain and the Chinese Empire. These hostilities have necessarily interrupted the trade of all nations with Canton, which is now in a state of blockade, and have * Vol. VIII. Page 540. † Page 355. ‡ Vol. XXXII. Page 791.

occasioned a serious loss of life and property. Meanwhile the insurrection within the Empire against the existing Imperial dynasty still continues, and it 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 Extraor dinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to proceed to China, and to avail himself of any opportunities which may offer to effect changes in the existing Treaty favourable to American commerce. He left The United States for the place of his destination in July last, in the war steamer Minnesota. Special Ministers to China have also been appointed by the Governments of Great Britain and France.

Whilst our Minister has been instructed to occupy a neutral position in reference to the existing hostilities at Canton, he will cordially co-operate with the British and French Ministers in all peaceful measures to secure by Treaty stipulations those just concessions to commerce which the nations of the world have a right to expect, and which China cannot long be permitted to withhold. From assurances received, I entertain no doubt that the three Ministers will act in harmonious concert to obtain similar commercial Treaties for each of the Powers they represent.

We cannot fail to feel 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 hoped, in a fair train of settlement in a manner just and honourable to both parties.

The Isthmus of Central America, including that of Panama, is the great highway between the Atlantic and Pacific, over which a large portion of the commerce of the world is destined to pass. The United States are more deeply interested than any other nation in preserving the freedom and security of all the communications across this isthmus. It is our duty, therefore, to take care that they shall not be interrupted either by invasions from our own country or by wars between the independent States of Central America. Under our Treaty with New Granada of the 12th December, 1846, we are bound to guaranty the neutrality of the Isthmus of Panama, through which the Panama 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 and people of The United States.

Under these circumstances, I recommend to 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. I also recommend

similar legislation for the security of any other route across the isthmus in which we may acquire an interest by Treaty.

With the independent Republics on this continent it is both our duty and our interest to cultivate the most friendly relations. We can never feel indifferent to their fate, and must always rejoice in their prosperity. Unfortunately, both for them and for us, our example and advice have lost much of their influence in consequence of the lawless expeditions which have been fitted out against some of them within the limits of our country. Nothing is better calculated 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 State, in its relations with the members of the great family of nations, to restrain its people from acts of hostile aggression against their citizens or subjects. The most eminent writers on public law do not hesitate to denounce such hostile acts as robbery and murder.

Weak and feeble States, like those of Central 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 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 our people, and usurp our government, we should call any Power on earth to the strictest account for not preventing such enormities.

Ever since the administration of General Washington, Acts of Congress have been in force to 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 we are at peace. The present neutrality Act of April 20, 1818,* is but little more than a collection of pre-existing laws. Under this Act, the President is empowered to employ the land and naval forces and the militia "for the purpose of preventing the carrying on of any such expedition or enterprise from the territories and jurisdiction of The United States," and the collectors of Customs are authorized and required to detain any vessel in port when there is reason to believe she is about to take part in such lawless enterprises.

When it was first rendered probable that an attempt would be made to get up another unlawful expedition against Nicaragua, the Secretary of State issued instructions to the marshals and district attorneys, which were directed by the Secretaries of War and the Navy to the appropriate army and navy officers, requiring them to * Vol. IX. Page 382.

be vigilant, and to use their best exertions in carrying into effect the provisions of the Act of 1818. Notwithstanding these precautions, 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 emigration 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 point of view alone, our citizens have sustained heavy loses from the seizure and closing of the transit route by the San Juan between the two oceans.

The leader of the recent expedition was arrested at New Orleans, but was discharged on giving bail for his appearance in the insufficient sum of 2,000 dollars.

I commend the whole subject to the serious attention of Congress, believing that our duty and our interest, as well as our national character, require that we should adopt such measures as will be effectual in restraining our citizens from committing such outrages.

I regret to inform you that the President of Paraguay has refused to ratify the Treaty between The United States and that State as amended by the Senate, the signature of which was mentioned in the Message of my predecessor to Congress at the opening of its session in December, 1853. The reasons assigned for this refusal will appear in the correspondence herewith submitted.

It being desirable to ascertain the fitness of the River La Plata and its tributaries for navigation by steam, The United States steamer Water Witch was sent thither for that purpose in 1853. This enterprise was successfully carried on until February, 1855, when, whilst in the peaceful prosecution of her voyage up the Parana river, the steamer was fired upon by a Paraguayan fort. The fire was returned; but as the Water Witch was of small force, and not designed for offensive operations, she retired from the conflict. The pretext upon which the attack was made was a decree of the President of Paraguay of October, 1854,* prohibiting foreign vessels of war from navigating the rivers of that State. As Paraguay, however, was the owner of but one bank of the river of that name, the other belonging to Corrientes, a State of the Argentine Confederation, the right of its Government to expect that such a decree would be obeyed cannot be acknowledged. But the Water Witch was not, properly speaking, a vessel of war. She was a small steamer engaged in a scientific enterprise intended for the advantage of commercial States generally. Under these circumstances, I am constrained to consider the attack upon her as unjustifiable, and as calling for satisfaction from the Paraguayan Government.

* Vol. XLV. Page 1312.

Citizens of The United States, also, who were established in business in Paraguay, have had their property seized and taken from them, and have otherwise been treated by the authorities in an insulting and arbitary manner, which requires redress.

A demand for these purposes will be made in a firm but conciliatory spirit. This will the more probably be granted if the Executive shall have authority to use other means in the event of a refusal. This is accordingly recommended.

It is unnecessary to state in detail the alarming condition of the territory of Kansas at the time of my inauguration. The opposing parties then stood in hostile array against each other, and any accident might have relighted the flames of civil war. Besides, at this critical moment, Kansas was left without a governor by the resignation of Governor Geary.

On the 19th of February previous, the territorial Legislature had passed a law providing for the election of delegates on the third Monday of June, to a Convention to meet on the first Monday of September, for the purpose of framing a constitution preparatory to admission into the Union. This law was in the main fair and just; and it is to be regretted that all the qualified electors had not registered themselves 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 establish ♣ Government of their own under the so-called Topeka Constitution. The persons attached to this revolutionary organization abstained from taking any part in the election.

The Act of the territorial Legislature had omitted to provide for submitting to the people the Constitution which might be framed by the Convention; and in the excited state of public feeling throughout Kansas, an apprehension extensively prevailed that a design existed to force upon them a Constitution, in relation to slavery, against their will. In this emergency it became my duty, as it was my unquestionable right, having in view the union of all good citizens in support of the territorial laws, 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 intent and meaning of this Act, not to legislate slavery into any territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way." Under it, Kansas, "when admitted as a State," was to be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their Constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission."

Did Congress mean by their language that the delegates elected