Chapter 17

The only difference between the fifth section of the act of 1815 for reducing the Army and the twelfth section of the act of 1821 for still further reducing it, by which the power to carry those laws into effect was granted to the President in each instance, consists in this, that by the former he was to cause the arrangement to be made of the officers, noncommissioned officers, musicians, and privates of the several _corps of troops_ then in the service of the United States, whereas in the latter the term _troops_ was omitted. It can not be doubted that that omission had an object, and that it was thereby intended to guard against misconstruction in so very material and important a circumstance by authorizing the application of the act unequivocally to every corps of the staff as well as of the line. With that word a much wider range was given to the act of 1815 on the reduction which then took place than under the last act. The omission of it from the last act, together with all the sanctions which were given by Congress to the construction of the law in the reduction made under the former, could not fail to dispel all doubt as to the extent of the power granted by the last law and of the principles which ought to guide, and on which it was thereby made the duty of the President to execute it. With respect to the other objection--that is, that officers of the same grade only ought to have been transferred to these new offices--it is equally unfounded. It is admitted that officers may be taken from the old corps and reduced and arranged in the new in inferior grades, as was done under the former reduction. This admission puts an end to the objection in this case; for if an officer may be reduced and arranged from one corps to another by an entire change of grade, requiring a new commission and a new nomination to the Senate, I see no reason why an officer may not be advanced in like manner. In both instances the grade in the old corps is alike disregarded. The transfer from it to the new turns on the merit of the party, and it is believed that the claim in this instance is felt by all with peculiar sensibility. The claim of Colonel Towson is the stronger because the arrangement of him to the office to which he is now nominated is not to one from which any officer has been removed, and to which any other officer may in any view of the case be supposed to have had a claim. As Colonel Gadsden held the office of Inspector-General, and as such was acknowledged by all to belong to the staff of the Army, it is not perceived on what ground his appointment can be objected to.

If such a construction is to be given to the act of 1821 as to confine the transfer of officers from the old to the new establishment to the _corps of troops_--that is, to the line of the Army--the whole staff of the Army in every branch would not only be excluded from any appointment in the new establishment, but altogether disbanded from the service. It would follow also that all the offices of the staff under the new arrangement must be filled by officers belonging to the new establishment after its organization and their arrangement in it. Other consequences not less serious would follow. If the right of the President to fill these original vacancies by the selection of officers from any branch of the whole military establishment was denied, he would be compelled to place in them officers of the same grade whose corps had been reduced, and they with them. The effect, therefore, of the law as to those appointments would be to legislate into office men who had been already legislated out of office, taking from the President all agency in their appointment. Such a construction would not only be subversive of the obvious principles of the Constitution, but utterly inconsistent with the spirit of the law itself, since it would provide offices for a particular grade, and fix every member of that grade in those offices, at a time when every other grade was reduced, and among them generals and other officers of the highest merit. It would also defeat every object of selection, since colonels of infantry would be placed at the head of regiments of artillery, a service in which they might have had no experience, and for which they might in consequence be unqualified.

Having omitted in the message to Congress at the commencement of the session to state the principles on which this law had been executed, and having imperfectly explained them in the message to the Senate of the 17th of January last, I deem it particularly incumbent on me, as well from a motive of respect to the Senate as to place my conduct in the duty imposed on me by that act in a clear point of view, to make this communication at this time. The examples under the law of 1815, whereby officers were reduced and arranged from the old corps to the new in inferior grades, fully justify all that has been done under the law of 1821. If the power to arrange under the former law authorized the removal of one officer from a particular station and the location of another in it, reducing the latter from a higher to an inferior grade, with the advice and consent of the Senate, it surely justifies under the latter law the arrangement of these officers, with a like sanction, to offices of new creation, from which no one had been removed and to which no one had a just claim. It is on the authority of these examples, supported by the construction which I gave to the law, that I have acted in the discharge of this high trust. I am aware that many officers of great merit, having the strongest claims on their country, have been reduced and others dismissed, but under the law that result was inevitable. It is believed that none have been retained who had not, likewise, the strongest claims to the appointments which have been conferred on them. To discriminate between men of acknowledged merit, especially in a way to affect so sensibly and materially their feelings and interests, for many of whom I have personal consideration and regard, has been a most painful duty; yet I am conscious that I have discharged it with the utmost impartiality. Had I opened the door to change in any case, even where error might have been committed, against whom could I afterwards have closed it, and into what consequences might not such a proceeding have led? The same remarks are applicable to the subject in its relation to the Senate, to whose calm and enlightened judgment, with these explanations, I again submit the nominations which have been rejected.

JAMES MONROE.

APRIL 15, 1822.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 12th instant, requesting the President of the United States "to cause to be laid before the Senate the original proceedings of the board of general officers charged with the reduction of the Army under the act of the 2d of March, 1821, together with all communications to and from said board on the subject of reducing the Army, including the case submitted to the Attorney-General, and his opinion thereon," I now transmit a report from the Secretary of War, furnishing the information requested.

JAMES MONROE.

WASHINGTON, _April 15, 1822_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with a resolution of the Senate requesting the President of the United States to lay before that House any report or information which may be in his possession as to the most eligible situation on the Western waters for the erection of a national arsenal, I herewith transmit a report from the Secretary of War, containing all the information on that subject in the possession of the Executive.

JAMES MONROE.

WASHINGTON, _April 15, 1822_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 16th of February last, requesting the President of the United States "to communicate to that House whether any foreign government has made any claim to any part of the territory of the United States upon the coast of the Pacific Ocean north of the forty-second degree of latitude, and to what extent; whether any regulations have been made by foreign powers affecting the trade on that coast, and how it affects the interest of this Republic, and whether any communications have been made to this Government by foreign powers touching the contemplated occupation of Columbia River," I now transmit a report from the Secretary of State, containing the information embraced by that resolution.

JAMES MONROE.

WASHINGTON, _April 18, 1822_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I communicate to the House of Representatives copies of sundry papers having relation to the transactions in East and West Florida, which have been received at the Department of State since my message to the two Houses of Congress of the 28th of January last, together with copies of two letters from the Secretary of State upon the same subject.

JAMES MONROE.

[The same message was sent to the Senate.]

WASHINGTON, _April 23, 1822_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 29th January last, requesting the President of the United States to cause to be communicated to that House certain information relative to the claim made by Jonathan Carver to certain lands within the United States near the Falls of St. Anthony. I now transmit a report of the Secretary of the Treasury, which, with the accompanying documents, contains all the information on this subject in the possession of the Executive.

JAMES MONROE.

WASHINGTON, _April 26, 1822_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit to the Senate, agreeably to their resolution of yesterday, a report from the Secretary of State, with copies of the papers requested by that resolution, in relation to the recognition of the South American Provinces.

JAMES MONROE.

WASHINGTON, _April 29, 1822_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit to the House of Representatives a report from the Secretary of State, in pursuance of their resolution of the 20th instant,[A] "requesting to be furnished with a copy of the judicial proceedings in the United States court for the district of Louisiana in the case of the French slave ship _La Pensee_."

JAMES MONROE.

[Footnote: A: An error; so in the original message. The date of the resolution is the 18th of April.]

WASHINGTON, _April 30, 1822_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with a resolution of the Senate, requesting the President of the United States to cause to be laid before the Senate certain information respecting the practical operation of the system of subsisting the Army under the provisions of the act passed the 14th of April, 1818, etc., I herewith transmit a report from the Secretary of War, furnishing the information required.

JAMES MONROE.

WASHINGTON, _May 1, 1822_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:

In the message to both Houses of Congress at the commencement of their present session it was mentioned that the Government of Norway had issued an ordinance for admitting the vessels of the United States and their cargoes into the ports of that Kingdom upon the payment of no other or higher duties than are paid by Norwegian vessels, of whatever articles the said cargoes may consist and from whatever ports the vessels laden with them may come.

In communicating this ordinance to the Government of the United States that of Norway has requested the benefit of a similar and reciprocal provision for the vessels of Norway and their cargoes which may enter the ports of the United States.

This provision being within the competency only of the legislative authority of Congress, I communicate to them herewith copies of the communications received from the Norwegian Government in relation to the subject, and recommend the same to their consideration.

JAMES MONROE.

WASHINGTON, _May 1, 1822_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:

I transmit herewith to Congress copies of letters received at the Department of State from the minister of Great Britain on the subject of the duties discriminating between imported rolled and hammered iron. I recommend them particularly to the consideration of Congress, believing that although there may be ground for controversy with regard to the application of the engagements of the treaty to the case, yet a liberal construction of those engagements would be compatible at once with a conciliatory and a judicious policy.

JAMES MONROE.

WASHINGTON, _May 4, 1822_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 19th of April, requesting the President "to cause to be communicated to the House, if not injurious to the public interest, any letter which may have been received from Jonathan Russell, one of the ministers who concluded the treaty of Ghent, in conformity with the indications contained in his letter of the 25th of December, 1814," I have to state that having referred the resolution to the Secretary of State, and it appearing, by a report from him, that no such document had been deposited among the archives of the Department, I examined and found among my private papers a letter of that description marked "private" by himself. I transmit a copy of the report of the Secretary of State, by which it appears that Mr. Russell, on being apprised that the document referred to by the resolution had not been deposited in the Department of State, delivered there "a paper purporting to be the duplicate of a letter written by him from Paris on the 11th of February, 1815, to the then Secretary of State, to be communicated to the House as the letter called for by the resolution."

On the perusal of the document called for I find that it communicates a difference of opinion between Mr. Russell and a majority of his colleagues in certain transactions which occurred in the negotiations at Ghent, touching interests which have been since satisfactorily adjusted by treaty between the United States and Great Britain. The view which Mr. Russell presents of his own conduct and that of his colleagues in those transactions will, it is presumed, call from the two surviving members of that mission who differed from him a reply containing their view of those transactions and of the conduct of the parties in them, and who, should his letter be communicated to the House of Representatives, will also claim that their reply should be communicated in like manner by the Executive--a claim which, on the principle of equal justice, could not be resisted. The Secretary of State, one of the ministers referred to, has already expressed a desire that Mr. Russell's letter should be communicated, and that I would transmit at the same time a communication from him respecting it.

On full consideration of the subject I have thought it would be improper for the Executive to communicate the letter called for unless the House, on a knowledge of these circumstances, should desire it, in which case the document called for shall be communicated, accompanied by a report from the Secretary of State, as above suggested. I have directed a copy to be delivered to Mr. Russell, to be disposed of as he may think proper, and have caused the original to be deposited in the Department of State, with instruction to deliver a copy to any person who may be interested.

JAMES MONROE.

WASHINGTON, _May 6, 1822_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

I transmit to Congress translations of two letters from Don Joaquin d'Anduaga to the Secretary of State, which have been received at the Department of State since my last message communicating copies of big correspondence with this Government.

JAMES MONROE.

_Don Joaquin de Anduaga to the Secretary of State_.

[Translation.]

PHILADELPHIA, _April 24, 1822_.

SIR: As soon as the news was received in Madrid of the recent occurrences in New Spain after the arrival at Vera Cruz of the Captain-General and supreme political chief appointed for those Provinces, Don Juan O. Donojú, and some papers were seen relative to those same transactions, it was feared that for forming the treaty concluded in Cordova on the 24th of August last between the said General and the traitor, Colonel Dr. Augustine Iturbide, it had been falsely supposed that the former had power from His Catholic Majesty for that act, and in a little time the correctness of those suspicions was found, as, among other things, the said O. Donojú, when on the 26th of the same August he sent this treaty to the governor of Vera Cruz, notifying him of its prompt and punctual observance, he told him that at his sailing from the Peninsula preparation for the independence of Mexico was already thought of, and that its bases were approved of by the Government and by a commission of the Cortes. His Majesty, on sight of this and of the fatal impression which so great an imposture had produced in some ultramarine Provinces, and what must without difficulty be the consequence among the rest, thought proper to order that, by means of a circular to all the chiefs and corporations beyond seas, this atrocious falsehood should be disbelieved; and now he has deigned to command me to make it known to the Government of the United States that it is false as far as General O. Donojú published beyond his instructions, by pointing out to it that he never could have been furnished with other instructions than those conformable to constitutional principles.

In compliance with this order of His Majesty, I can do no less than observe to you, sir, how unfounded one of the reasons is in your note of the 6th instant for the recognition by this Government of those of the insurgent Provinces of Spanish-America--that it was founded on the treaty made by O. Donojú with Iturbide--since not having had that power nor instruction to conclude it it is clearly null and of no value.

I repeat to you, sir, the sentiments of my distinguished consideration, and pray God that you live many years.

JOAQUIN DE ANDUAGA.

_Don Joaquin de Anduaga to the Secretary of State_.

[Translation.]

PHILADELPHIA, _April 26, 1822_.

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, _Secretary of State_.

SIR: I have received your note of the 15th instant, in which you are pleased to communicate to me the reasons which induce the President not only to refuse to His Catholic Majesty the satisfaction which he demanded in his royal name for the insults offered by General Jackson to the Spanish commissaries and officers, but to approve fully of the said chief's conduct.

Before answering the contents of the said note I thought it my duty to request instructions from my Government, and therefore without delay I have laid it before them. Until they arrive, therefore, I have confined myself to two observations:

First. If in my note of the 18th of November last I said that as General Jackson had not specified the actions which had induced him to declare the Spanish officers expelled from the Floridas criminal, nor given proof of them, I thought myself authorized to declare the accusation false, I did not this through inadvertency, but upon the evident principle that every person accused has a right to declare an accusation destitute of proof false, and, much more, an accusation not pretended to be proved. This assertion of mine does not presume that I am not persuaded of the merit of the said General and of the claim which he has upon the gratitude of his country; but although it is believed the duty of his country to eulogize and reward his eminent services, yet it will be lawful for the representative of a power outraged by him to complain of his conduct. I can not persuade myself that to aggravate my said expression you could have thought that I had been wanting in due respect, it not being possible for that opinion to have entered your mind, when by his orders Mr. Forsyth had sent to the Spanish minister on the 1st of September last a note, in which, complaining of the Captain-General of the island of Cuba, he accuses him of dishonorable pecuniary motives in not having delivered the archives, without giving any proof of so injurious an assertion; and I must remark that the rank of General Mabry in Spain is at least as elevated as that of General Jackson in the United States, and that the services performed by him to his country have rendered him as worthy as he of its consideration and respect.

Second. Although you are pleased to tell me that part of the papers taken from Colonel Coppinger are ready to be delivered, which the American commissioners, _after having examined them_, have adjudged to be returned to Spain, I do not think myself authorized to admit their return in this manner, but in the mode which I demanded in my note of the 22d of November last.

As I have seen by the public papers that the President has communicated to Congress the note which you were pleased to address to me, dated the 15th instant, and that it has been ordered to be printed, I take the liberty of requesting that you will have the goodness to use your influence that this my answer may be treated in the same manner, that Congress and the public may be informed that if I have not answered the first part of it as respects the general business, it is only to wait for the instructions of my Government, but that I have answered what was personal.

I renew to you, sir, the sentiments of my distinguished consideration.

JOAQUIN DE ANDUAGA.

WASHINGTON, _May 6, 1822_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 26th of April, requesting the President of the United States "to communicate to the Senate the report of the Attorney-General relative to any persons (citizens of the United States) who have been charged with or suspected of introducing any slaves into the United States contrary to existing laws," I transmit herewith two reports from the Attorney-General.

JAMES MONROE.

WASHINGTON, _May 7, 1822_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 25th of April, requesting certain information concerning lead mines on lands of the United States, I herewith transmit a report from the Secretary of War.

JAMES MONROE.

WASHINGTON, _May 7, 1822_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 23d of April, requesting the President of the United States to cause to be communicated to that House certain information respecting the lead mines of the State of Missouri, I herewith transmit a report of the Secretary of War.

JAMES MONROE.

WASHINGTON, _May 7, 1822_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 7th of May, requesting the President to communicate to that House a letter of Jonathan Russell, esq., referred to in his message of the 4th instant, together with such communications as he may have received relative thereto from any of the other ministers of the United States who negotiated the treaty of Ghent, I herewith transmit a report from the Secretary of State, with the documents called for by that resolution.

JAMES MONROE.

VETO MESSAGE.

WASHINGTON, _May 4, 1822_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

Having duly considered the bill entitled "An act for the preservation and repair of the Cumberland road," it is with deep regret, approving as I do the policy, that I am compelled to object to its passage and to return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, under a conviction that Congress do not possess the power under the Constitution to pass such a law.