Newspaper Page Text
THE PRESIDENTS MESSAGE. Fellow Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives ; Throughout the year Biuce our last meet ing, the country has been eminently pros perous in its material interests. The gen eral health has been excellent, our harvests have been abundant, and plenty smiles throughout the land. Our commerce and manufactures have been prosecuted with energy aDd industry, and have yielded fair and ample returns. In short, no nation in the tide of time, has ever presented a spec tacle of greater material prosperity, than we have done until a very recent period. Why is it then that discontent now exten sively prevails, and the union of the States, which is the source of all these blessings, is threatened with destruction? The long continued and intemperate interference of the Northern people with the question of slavery in the Southern States, has at length produced its natural effects. The different sections of the Union are now ar rayed against each other, and the time has arrived so much dreaded by the Father of his country, when hostile geographical parties have been formed. I have long foreseen, and often forewarned my country men of the now impending danger. This does not proceed solely from the claim on the part of Congress or the territorial legis latures to exclude slavery from the territo ries ; nor from the efforts of different States to defeat the execution of the Fugitive Slave Law. All or any of these evils might have been endured by the South, without danger to the Union, as others have been in the hope that time and reflection might apply the remedy. The immediate peril arises, not so much from these causes, as from the fact that the violent agitation of the slavery question throughout the North for the last quarter of a century has at length produced its ma lign influence on the slaves, and inspired them with vague notions of freedom ; hence a sense of security no longer exists around the family altar. This feeling of peace at home has given place to apprehensions of servile insurrection. Many a matron thro’- oat the South retires at night in dread of what may befal herself and her children before the morning. Sbonld this apprehen sion of domestic danger, whether real or imaginary, extend and intensify itself, un til it shall pervade the masses of the south ern people, then disunion will be ineviteble. Self-preservation is the first law of nature, and has been implanted in the heart of man by his Creator for the wisest purposes, aDd no political anion, however fraught with blessings and benefits, in all other re spects, can loDg continue, if the necessary consequences be to render the homes and firesides of nearly half the parties to it hab itually and hopelessly insecure. Sooner or later the bonds of sncb a union must be severed. It is my conviction that this fa tal period has not yet arrived, and my pray er to God is that he would preserve the Constitution and the Union throngbout all generations. But let us take warning in time, and remove the cause ol danger. It cannot be denied that for five and twenty years the agitation at the North against slavery in the South has been incessant. In 1835, pictorial hand bills and inflamma tory appeals were circulated extensively throughout the south, of a character to ex cite the passions of the slaves—and in the language of General Jackson, to stimulate them to insurrection, and produce all the horrors of a servile war. This agitation has ever since been continued by the pub lic press, by the proceedings of state and county coaventions, and by abolition sermons and lectures. The time of Con gress has beeu occupied in violent speeches on the never ending subject, and appeals in pamphlet, and other forms, indorsed by distinguished names, Lave been sent forth from this central point, and spread broad cast over the Union. How easy it would be for the American people to settle the slavery question forever, and to restore peace and harmony to this distracted coun try. They alone can do it. All that is necessary to accomplish this object, and all which the slave states have ever contended for, is to be let alone, and permitted to man age their domestic institutions in their own way, as sovereign states. They, and they alone, are responsible before God and the world for the slavery existing among them. For this the people ol the North are not more responsible, and have no more right to interfere than with similar institutions in Russia or Brazil. Upon their good sense and patriotic forbearance I confess I still greatly rely. Without their aid it is beyond tbe pow er of any President, no matter what may be bis own political proclivities, to restore peace and harmony among the states. Wise ly limited and restrained as is his power under our constitution and laws, he alone can accomplish but little for good or evil, on such a momentous question ; and this brings me to observe that the election of any one of our fellow citizens to the office of President, does not of itself afford just cause for dissolving the Union. This is more especially true il his election has been effected by a mere plurality, and not a ma jority of the people, and has resulted from transient and temporary causes, which may probably never again occur. In order to justify a resort to revolutionary resistance to tbe Federal Government, he must be guilty of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of powers not granted by the con stitution. The late presidential election, however, has been held in strict conformity with its express provisions. How then can tbe result justify a revolution to destroy this very constitution ? Reason, justice and re gard for the constitution all require that we shall wait for some overt and dangerous act on the part of the President elect, before resorting to such a remedy. It is said, however, that the antecedents of the President elect have been sufficient to justify the fears of the South that he will attempt to invade their constitutional rights; but are such apprehensions of con tingent danger in the future sufficient to justify the immediate destruction of the no blest system of government ever devised by mortals. From tbe very nature of his office and its high responsibilities, he must neces sarially be conservative. The stern duty of administering the vast and complicated concerns of this government affords m itself a guarantee that he will not attempt any violation of a clear constitutional right. After all he ie no more than tbe chief exe cutive officer of tbe government. His [irovince is Dot to make, but execute its aws, and it is a remarkable fact in our history that, notwithstanding the reported efforts of the anti-slavery party, no single act has ever passed Congress, unless wemay possibly except the Missouri Compromise, impairing in the slightest degree the rights of tbe South to their property in slaves. Aod it may also be observed, judging from present indications, that no probability exists of tbe passage of such an act by a majority of both Houses either in the pres ent or the next Congress. Surely under these circumstances, we ought to be restrained from present action by the precept of Him who spake as never man spake, that “sufficient unto tbe day is the evil thereof.” The day of evil may never come unless we shall rashly bring it apon ourselves. It is alleged as one cause for immediate secession that the southern states are denied equal rights with the other states in the common territories. But by what authority are these denied ? Not by Congress, which has never passed, and I believe never will .pass any act to exclude slavery from these territories : and certain ly Dot by the Supreme Court which has solemnly decided that slaves are property, and like ali other property, their owners have a right to take them into the com mon territories and hold them there under the protection of the Constitution. So far then as Congress is concerned, the objection is not to anything they have already done, but to what they may do hereafter. It will surely be admitted that this apprehension of future donger is no good reason for an im mediate dissolution of tbe Union. It is true that the Territorial Legislature of Kansas, on the 23d of February, 1860, passed in great haste an act over the veto of the Governor, declaring that slavery is and shall be forever prohibited in the ter ritory. Such an act, however, plainly vio lating the rights of property secure 1 by the constitution, will surely be declared void by the Judiciary, whenever it shall be pre sented in a legal form. Only three days after my inauguration, the Supreme Court of the United States solemnly adjudged that thi3 power did Dot exist iu a Territo rial Legislature. Yet such has been the factious temper of the times, that the cor rectness of this decision has been exten sively impugned before the people, and the question has given rise to angry political conflict throughout the country. Those who have appealed from this judgment of our highest constitutional tribunal to pop ular assemblies, would, if they could, invest Territorial Legislatures with power to an nul the sacred rights of property. This power CoDgress is expressly forbidden by the Federal Constitution to exercise. Ev ery State Legislature in the Union is for bidden by its own Constitution to exercise it. It cannot be exercised in any State, except by the people in their highest sov ereign capacity, when framing or amend ing their State Constitution. In like manner, it can only be exercised by the people of the territory represented in a convention of delegates for the purpose of framing a constitution, prefatory to ad mission as a State into the Union. Then, aDd not until then, are they invested with power to decide the question, whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits. This is an act of sovereign author ity, and not of subordinate territorial legis lation. Were it otherwise, then indeed would the equality of the states in the ter ritories be destroyed, and the rights of property in slaves would depend, not upon the guarantees of the Constitution, but up on the shifting majorities of an irresponsible legislature. Such a doctrine, from its in trinsic unsouuduess, cannot long influence any portion of our people, much less can it afiord a good reason for a dissolution of the UnioD. Tbe most palpable violations of constitutional duty which have yet been committed, consist in the acts of different state legislatures to defeat the execution of the Fugitive Slave Law. It ought to be remembered, however, that for these acts neither Congress nor any President can be justly held responsible; having been passed in violation of the Fed eral Constitution, they are therefore null and void. Ail the courts, both state and DatioDal, before whom the question has arisen, from the beginning declared the fu gitive slave law to be constitutional. The single exception is that of a state court of Wisconsin, and this has not only been re versed by the proper appellate tribunal, but has met with such universal reprobation that there can be no danger from it as a precedent. The validity of this law has been established over and over again by the Supreme Court of the United States with perfect unanimity. It is founded upon au express provision of the Constitution, re quiring that fugitive slaves who escape from service in one state to another shall be de livered up to their masters. Without this provisiou, it is a well known historical fact that the Constitution itself could never have been adopted by the convention. In one form or another under the acts of 1793 or 1856, both being substantially the same, the fagitive slave law has beeu the law of the land from the days of Washington until the present moment. Here then, a clear case is presented in which it will be the du ty of the next President, as it has been my own, to act with vigor in executing this supreme law against the conflicting enact ments of state legislatures. Should he fail iu the performance of this high duty, he will then have manifested a disregard of the Constitution aud laws to the great injury of the people of nearly one half of the states of the Union. But are we to presume in advance that he will thus violate this duty ? This would be at war with every principle of justice—of Christian charity. Let us wait for the overt act. The Fugitive slave law has been carried into execution in every contested case since the commencement of the present ad minis* tration, though often, it is to be regretted, THE WEEKLY PIONEER AND DEMOCRAT with great loth and inconvenience and with considerable expense to the government. Let us trust that the state legislatures will repeal their unconstitutional and obnoxious enactments; unless this shall be done with out uueecessary delay it is impossible for any human power to save the Union. The southern states, standing on the basis of the Constitution, have a right to demand this act of justice from the states of the North. Should it be refused them, the Constitution, to which all the states are parties, will have been wilfully violated by one portion of them, iu a provision essential to the domes mestic security aud happiness of the remain der. In that event the injured states, after having first used all peaceful aud constitu tional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the government of tbe Union. I have purposely confined my remarks to revolutionary resistance, because it has been claimed within the last few years, that any state, whenever it shall become her sover eign will aud pleasure, may secede from the Union in accordance with the constitution, and in accordance with the constitutional rights of the other members of the confeder acy ; that as each became parties to the Union by the vote of its own people assem bled in convention, so any one of them may retire from the Union in a similar manner, by the vote of such a convention. Id order to justify secession as a constitutional reme dy, it must be on the principle that the fed eral government is a mere voluntary associ ation of states, to be dissolved at pleasure by one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the confederacy is a rope of sand, and to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the states. In this manner our thirty-three states may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without re sponsibility, whenever any sudden excite ment might impel them to such a course; by this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks, which cost our lorefathers many years of toil, pri vation and blood to establish. Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the history, as it was framed with the greatest deliberation and care, it was sub mitted to conventions of the people of the several States for ratification, its provisions were discussed at length in these bodies composed of the first men of the country.— Its opponents contended that it conferred power upon the federal government, dan gerous to the rights of the States, whilst its advocates maintained that under a fair con struction of the instrument, there was no foundation for such apprehensions. In that mighty struggle between the first intellects ol this or any other country, it never occur red to any individual, either among its op ponents or advocates, to assert or even to intimate that their efforts were all vain la bor, because the moment that any State felt herself aggrieved, she might secede from the Union. What a crushing argument would this have proved against those who dreaded that the rights of the States would be endangered by the Constitution? The truth is,that it was not until many years after the origin of the Federal Government, that such a proposition was first advanced. It was then met and refuted by the conclusive arguments of General Jackson, who, in his message of the 16th of January, 1833, trans mitting the nullifying ordinance of South Carolina to Congress, employs the follow ing language: “ The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at will, without the consent of the other States, from their mo3t solemn obligations, hazards the liberty and union, and happiness of millions com posing this and cannot be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant, both to the principles upon which the General Government is constitu ted, and to the objects which it was ex pressly formed to attain. It is not pretend ed that any clause in the Constitution gives countenance to such a theory. It is alto gether founded upon inference, not from any language contained in the instrument itself, but from the sovereign character of the several States by which it was ratified ; but it is beyond the power of a state, like an individual, to yieli a portion of its sov ereign rights to secure the remainder.” In the language of Mr. Madison, who has been called the Father of the Constitu tion, it was formed by the States, that is by the people in each of the States, acting in their highest sovereign capacity, and form ed consequently by the same authority which formed the state constitutions; nor is the government of the United States created by the Constitution, less a govern ment, in the strictest sense of the term, within the sphere of its powers, than the governments created by the Constitution of the states are within their several spheres. It is like them organized into legislative, executive, and judiciary departments. It operates like them directly on persons and things, and like them, it has at command a physical force for executing the powers committed to it; was intended to be per petual, and not to be annulled at the plea sure of any one of the contracting parties of the Confederation. A perpetual union between the States, and by the 13th arti cle, it is expressly declared that the articles of this Confederation shall be inevitably observed by every state, and the Union shall be perpetuated. The preamble to the Constitution of the United States, having express reference to the articles of Confederation, states it was established in order to form a more perfect Union, does not include the essential attri bute of perpetuity, but that the Union was designed to be perpetual, appears conclus ively from the nature and extent of the powers conferred by the Constitution on the federal government. These powers embrace the very highest attributes of na tional sovereignty. They place both the sword and the purse under its control. — Congress has power to make war and to make peace, to raise and support armies, and navies, and to conclude treaties with foreign governments. It is invested with the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof, and to regulate com merce with foreign nations, and among the several States, it is not necessary to enu- merate the other high powers which have been conferred upon the General Govern ment. In order to carry the enumerated powers into effect, Congress possesses the exclusive right to lay aod collect duties on imports, aud iu common with the States to lay and collect all other taxes. But the Constitution has not only conferred these high powers upon Congress, but it has ad opted effectual means to restrain the States from interfering with their exercise for that purpose. It has in a strong prohibi tory language expressly declared that no State shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation, grant letters of marque and reprisal, coin money, emit bills of cred it, make any thin * but gold aod silver coin a tender in payment of debts, pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or laws im* pairing the obligations of contracts. More over, without the consent of Congress, no State shall levy any impostß or duties on any imports or exports except what may bo absolutely necessary for executing the inspection laws, and if they exceed this amount, the excesses shall belong to the United States, and no State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, keep troops or Bhips of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement of compact with another State, or with a for eign power, or engage in war unless actual ly invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of farther delay. Iu order still further to secure the unin terrupted exercise of these high powers against state interposition, it is provided that the Constitution and laws of the United States, which shall be mads in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the laud, and the judges in every state shall shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution and laws of any state to the contrary not withstanding. The solemn sanctions of religion have been superadded to the obli gations of official duty, and all Senators and Representatives of the United States, all members of State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. In order to carry into effect these laws the Constitution has established a perfect government in all its forms—legislative, executive aud judicial—aDd the govern ment, to the extent of its powers, acts upon the individual citizens of every state, and executes its own decrees by the agency of its own officers. In this respect it differs entirely from the government under tbe old confederation, which was confined to making requisitions on the states in their sovereign character. This left in the discretion of each whether to obey or to refuse, and they often declined to comply with such requisi tions. It thus became necessary, for the purpose of removing tbe barrier, and iu order to form a more perfect uniOD, to es tablish a government which could act di rectly upon the people, and execute its own laws without the intermediate agency of the states. This has been accomplished by the Constitution of the United States. In short, the government created by the Constitution, and drawing its authority from the sovereign people of each of the several states, has precisely the same rights to exer cise its power over the people of all states in the enumerated cases, that each one of them possesses over subjects not delegated to the United States, but reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. To the extent of the delegated powers, the Con stitution of the United States is as much a part of the constitution of each state, and is as binding upon the people as though it bad been textually inserted therein. This gov ernment, therefore, is a great and powerful government, invested with all the attributes of sovereignty of the special subjects to which its authority extends. Its framers never intended to implant in its bosom the seeds of its own destruction; nor were they at its creation, guilty of the absurdity of providing for its own dissolution. It was not intended by its framers to be the baseless fabric of a vision, which, at the touch of the enchanter, would vanish into thin air, but a substantial and mighty fabric, capable of resisting the slow decay of time, and of defying the storms of ages. Indeed, well may jealous patriots of that day have indulged fears, that a government of such high powers might violate the re served rights of the states, and wisely did they adopt the rule of a strict construction of those powers, to prevent the danger ; but they did not fear nor had they any reason to imagine, that the Constitution would ever be so interpreted as to enable any state, by her sister states, to discharge her people from all or any of their federal obligations. It may be asked, then, are the people of the states without redress against the tyranny and oppression of the federal government ? By no means. The right of resistance on the part of the oppressed against the op pression of their governments, cannot be denied : it exists independent of all Constitu tions, and has been exercised at all periods of the world’s history. Under it old gov ernments have been destroyed, and under it new ones have been replaced. It is em bodied in strong and express language, in our own Declaration of lndepen lence, but the distinction must ever be observed, that this is revolution against an established government, and not a voluntary secession from it by the virtue of an inherent consti tutional right. In short, let us lo>k the danger fairly in the face: Secession is nothing more nor less than revolution. It may or it may not be justifiable revolution, but still it is revo lution. What, in the meantime, is the re sponsibility and true position of the Execu tive, bound by solemn oath before God and the country to take care that the laws be faithfully executed ? From this obligation he cannot be absolved by any human power. But what if the performance of this duty, in whole or in part, has been rendered im practicable by events over which he could have exercised no control ? Such, at the present moment, is the case throughout the State of South Carolina. So far as the laws of the United States to secure the ad ministration of justice by means of the fed eral judiciary, is concerned, all the Federal officers within its limits, through whose agency alone those laws can be carried into execution, have already resigned. We have no longer a District Judge, or District At torney in South Carolina. In fact, the whole machinery of the federal government, necessary for the distribution of remedial jnstice among the people, has been demol ished, and it would be difficult, if not im possible, to replace it. The only acts of Congress on the statute book bearing upon this subject, are those of the 28th of Feb ruary, 1795, and 3rd of March, 1807. These authorize the President, after he shall have ascertained that tbe Marshal with his posse comitatas is unable to execute civil or criminal process in any particular case, to call forth tbe militia, and employ the army and navy to aid him in performing the service, having first, by proclamation, commanded the insurgents to disperse and return peaceably to their respective abodes within a limited time. This duty cannot, by any possibility, be performed in a State where no judicial authority exists to issue process, and where there is no Marshal to execute, and where, even if there were such an office, the entire population would com bine in one solid column to resist him. The mere resistance of these provisions proves how inadequate they are, without further legislation, to overcome a united opposition in a single state, not to speak of other states who may place themselves in a similar attitude. Congress alone has power to decide whether the present laws cannot be amended so as to carry out more effectu ally the objects of the Constitution. The same insuperable obstacles do not lie in the way of executing the laws for the collection of customs. The revenue still continues to be collected as heretofore at the Castom House in Charleston, and should tbe Col lector unfortunately resign, a successor may be appointed to perform this duty. TheD, in regard to the property of the United States in South Carolina, this has been pur chased for a fair equivalent, by the consent of the Legislature of the State, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, &c., and over these the authority to exercise exclusive legislation has been expressly granted by the State to Congress. It is not believed that any attempt will be made to expel the United States from this prop erty by force; but if iu this I should prove to be mistaken, the officer in the command of the forts has received orders to act strictly on the defensive. In such a contin gency, the responsibility for consequences would rightfully rest upon the heads of the assailants. Apart from the execution of the laws, so far as this may be practicable, the Execu-, tire has no authority to decide what shall be the relations between the federal gov ernment and South Carolina. He has been invested with no such discretion. He pos sesses no power to change the relations heretofore existing between them, much less to acknowledge the independence of that state. This would be to invest a mere ex ecutive officer with the power of recognizs ing the dissolution of the confederacy among our thirty-three sovereign states. It has no resemblance to the recognition of a for eign de facto government involving no such responsibility; any attempt to do this would on his part be a naked act of usurpation. It is, therefore, my duty to submit to Con gress the whole question in all its bearings. The course of events is so rapidly hastening forward that the emergency may arrive when you may be called upon to decide the momentous question whether you possess the power by force of arms, to compel a a state to remain in the Union. I should feel myself recreant to ray duty were I to express an opinion on the important subject. The question fairly stated is: Has the constitution delegated to Congress the pow er to force a state into submission which is attempting to withdraw, or has actually withdrawn from the confederacy ? If an swered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare apd to make war against a state. After much serious reflection, I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the Federal Gov ernment. It is manifest, upon an inspection of the Constitution, tnat this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not necessary and proper for carrying into execution any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it wa6 express l ly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution. It appears from the pro ceedings of that body, on the 31st of May, 1787, that the clause authorizing an execu tion of the force of the whole against a delinquent State came up for consideration. Mr. Madison opposed it in a brief, but powerful speech, from which I shall extract but a single sentence. He observed, “ the use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an in fliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked, as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.” Upon his motion the clause was unani, mousiy postponed, and was never, I believe, again presented. Soon after, on the 6th of June, 1787, when incidentally adverting to this sub ject, he said: “Any government for the United States, formed on the supposed practicability of using force against the un constitutional proceedings of the States, would prove as visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress,” evidently meaning the then existing Congress of the old Confederation. Without descending to particulars, it may be safely asserted that the power to make war against a State is at variance with the whole spirit and intent of the Constitution. S ippose such a war should result in the conquest of a State, how are we to govern it afterwards? Shall we hold it as a province and govern it by a despotic power? In the nature of things, we could not control by physical force the will of the people, and compel them to elect Senators and Representatives to Congress, and to perform all the other duties depend ing upon their own violation, and required from the free citizens of a free State as a constitutional member of tbe Confederacy. But if we possessed the power, would it be wise to exercise it under the existing cir cumstances? The object would be doubt less to preserve tbe Union, but it would not only present the most effectual means of destroying it, but would banish all hope of its peaceable reconstruction. Besides in the fraternal conflict a vast amount of blood aod treasure would be expended, rendering future reconciliation between the States im possible. Id the meantime, who can fore tell what would be the sufferings and pri vations of the people during its existence. The fact is that our uuion rests upon pub lic opinion, and can never be cemented by tbe blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it cannot live in the affections of tbe peo ple, it mast one day perish. Congress pos sesses many means of preserving by concili ation; but tbe sword was not placed in their hands to preserve it by force. But may I be permitted solemnly to invoke my coun trymen to pause and deliberate, before they determine to destroy this, the grandest tem ple, which has ever been dedicated to hu man freedom since the world began. It has been consecrated by the blood of our fathers, by the glories of our past and the hopes of the future; and the Union has al ready made us the most prosperous, aud ere long will, if preserved, render us the most powerful Dation on the face of the earth. In every foreign region of the globe the title of American citizen is held in the high est respect, aDd when pronounchd in foreign lauds, it causes the hearts of our country men to swell with honest pride. Surely, wheD we reach the brink of the yawning abyss, we shall recoil with horror from the last fatal pluDge. By such a dread catas trophe the hopes ol the friends of freedom throughout the world would be destroyed, and a long night of leaden despotism would enshroud the nation. Our example for more than eighty years would not only be lost, but it would be quoted as a conclusive proof that man is unfit for self-government. It is not every wrong, nay, it is not every grievous wrong, which can justify a resort to such a fearful alternative. This ought to be the last desperate remedy of a despair ing people, after every other constitutional means of conciliation bad been exhausted. We should reflect that under this free gov ernment there is an incessant ebb and flow of public opinion. Tbe slavery question, like every thing human, will have its day. I firmly believe that it has already reached and passed the culminating point; but if, iu the midst of the existing excitement, the Union shall perish, the evil may then be come irreparable. Congress can contribute much to arrest it, by proposing aDd recom mending to the Legislatures of tbe several states the remedy lor existing evils which the Constitution has itself provided for its own preservation. This has been tried at different critical periods of our history, and always with emi nent success. It is to be found iu the fifth article, providing ior its own amendment. Under this article amendments have been proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and have been ratified by the legislatures ol three-fourths of the several states, aud have consequently become parts of the. Constitution. To this process tbe country is indebted for tbe clause prohibit ing Congress from passing any law respect ing an establishment of religion or abridg ing tbe freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of petition. To this we are also indebted for tbe bill of rights, which secured the people against any abuse of power by the lederal government. Such were the apprehensions justly entertained by the frieuds of state rights at that period as to have rendered it extremily doubtful whether the Constitution could have long survived without these amendments. Again; the Constitution wa3 amended by the same process after the election of President Jefferson by the House of Repre sentatives, in February, 1803. This amend, meat was rendered necessary to prevent a recurrence of the dangers which had threat, ened the evistence of the governmeht dun ing the pendency of that election. The article for its own amendment was intended to procure the amicable adjustment of the conflicting constitutional questions, like the present, which might arise between the governments of the States and the United States* This appears from contemporane ous history. In this connection I shall merely call attention to a few instances in Mr. Madison’s justly celebrated report, in 1779, to the Legislature of Virginia. In this, he ably and conclusively defended the resolutions of the preceding Legislature against the strictures of several other state legislatures. These were mainly founded upon the protest of the Virginia Legisla, tore against the alien and sedition acts, as palpable and alarming infractions on the Constitution. In pointing out the peaceful and constitutional remedies—and he refer, red to none other—to which the States were authorized to resort on such occasions, he concludes by saying that the Legisla* tures of the states might have made a di« rect representation to Congress,with a view to obtain a rescinding of the two offerding acts, or they might have represented in their respective Senators in Congress their wish that two-thirds thereof would propose auy explanatory amendment to the Consti tution ; or two-thirds of themselves, if such had been their option, might, by an appli cation to Congr.ss, have obtained a conven tion for the very same object. OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS—GREAT BRITAIN, Oar relations with Great Britain are of the most frienaly character. Since the commence ment of my administration, the two dangerous questions arising from the Clayton and Bulwer tteaty, and from the right of search claimed by the British government, have been amicably and honorably adjusted. The discordant con structions of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty between the two governments, which at dif ferent periods of the discussion, bore a threat ening aspect, have resulted in a final settle ment entirely satisfactory to this goverament- In my last annual message, I informed Con gress that the British government had not then completed arrangements with the Republics of Honduras and Nicaragua in pursuance of Hie undei standing between the two governments - It was nevertheless confidently expected that the good work would ere long be accomplish- - ed. This confidence has since been fulfilled,’ Her Britannic Hajesty concluded a treaty 'with' Honduras on the 28th of November* and with Nicaragua on the 28th ef August, 1860, re- I |