CHAPTER XXIII.

MR. MONROE'S FIFTH ANNUAL MESSAGE-QUESTION OF INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS.

ON

N the 3d of December, 1821, Congress again assembled. ("First session of the seventeenth Congress.")

Mr. Clay was not now in Congress, and the race for Speaker was mainly confined to John W. Taylor, the last Speaker, and Philip P. Barbour, of Virginia, the latter being elected after many ballots. Mr. Barbour was not very friendly to the Administration, but he had opposed the slavery restrictions in the Missouri contest, and was unfriendly to interal improvements by the Government, and to a protective system of legislation.

The following is Mr. Monroe's

FIFTH ANNUAL MESSAGE.

December 3, 1821.

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES:The progress of our affairs since the last session has been such as may justly be claimed and expected under a government deriving all its powers from an enlightened people, and under laws formed by their representatives, on great consideration, for the sole purpose of promoting the welfare and happiness of their constituents. In the execution of those laws, and of the powers vested by the Constitution in the Executive, unremitted attention has been paid to the great objects to which they extend. In the

concerns which are exclusively internal, there is good cause to be satisfied with the result. The laws have had their due operation and effect. In those relating to foreign powers, I am happy to state that peace and amity are preserved with all, by a strict observance on both sides of the rights of each. In matters touching our commercial intercourse, where a difference of opinion has existed as to the conditions on which it should be placed, each party has pursued its own policy, without giving just cause of offense to the other. In this annual communication, especially when it is addressed to a new Congress, the whole scope of our political concerns naturally comes into view, that errors, if such have been committed, may be corrected; that defects which have become manifest may be remedied; and on the other hand, that measures which were adopted on due deliberation, and which experience has shown are just in themselves and essential to the public welfare, should be persevered in and supported. In per forming this necessary and very important duty, I shall endeavor to place before you, on its merits, every subject that is thought to be entitled to your particular attention, in as distinct and clear a light as I may be able.

80

By an act of the 3d of March, 1815, so much of the several acts as imposed higher duties on the tonnage of foreign vessels, and on the manufactures and productions of foreign nations, when imported into the United States in foreign vessels, than when imported in vessels of the United States, were repealed, far as respected the manufactured productions of the nation to which such vessels belonged, on the condition that the repeal should take effect only in favor of any foreign nation, when the Executive should be satisfied that such discriminating duties to the disadvantage of the United States had likewise been repealed by such nation. By this act, a proposition was made nations to place our commerce with each on a basis which it was presumed would be acceptable to all. Every nation was allowed to bring its manufactures and productions into our ports, and to take the manufactures and productions of the United States back to their ports in their own vessels, on the same conditions that they might be transported in vessels of the United States; and in return, it was required that a like accommodation should be granted to the vessels of the United States in the ports of other powers. The articles to be admitted or prohibited on either side, formed no part of the proposed arrangement. Each party would

to all

retain the right to admit or prohibit such articles from the other as it thought proper, and on its own conditions.

When the nature of the commerce between the United States and every other country was taken into view, it was thought that this proposition would be considered fair, and even liberal, by every power. The exports of the United States consist generally of articles of the first necessity, and of rude materials in demand for foreign manufactories, of great bulk, requiring for their transportation many vessels, the return for which, in the manufactures and productions of any foreign country, even when disposed of there to advantage, may be brought in a single vessel. This observation is the more especially applicable to those countries from which manufactures alone are imported, but it applies in a great extent to the European dominions of every European power, and in a certain extent to all the Colonies of those powers.

By placing, then, the navigation precisely on the same ground, in the transportation of exports and imports between the United States and other countries, it was presumed that all was offered which could be desired. It seemed to be the only proposition which could be devised which would retain even the semblance of equality in our favor.

Many considerations of great weight gave us a right to expect that this commerce should be extended to the Colonies, as well as to the European dominions of other powers. With the latter, especially with countries exclusively manufacturing, the advantage was manifestly on their side. An indemnity for that loss was expected from a trade with the Colonies, and with the greater reason, as it was known that the supplies which the Colonies derived from us were of the highest importance to them, their labor being bestowed with so much greater profit in the culture of other articles; and because, likewise, the articles of which those supplies consisted, forming so large a proportion of the exports of the United States, were never admitted into any of the ports of Europe, except in cases of great emergency, to avert a serious calamity. When no article is admitted which is not required to supply the wants of the party admitting it, and admitted then, not in favor of any particular country, to the disadvantage of others, but on conditions equally applicable to all, it seems just that the articles thus admitted and invited should be carried thither in the vessels of the country affording such

supply, and that the reciprocity should be found in a corresponding accommodation on the other side. By allowing each party to participate in the transportation of such supplies, on the payment of equal tonnage, strong proof was afforded of an accommodating spirit. To abandon to it the transportation of the whole would be a sacrifice which ought not to be expected. The demand in the present instance would be the more unreasonable, in consideration of the great inequality existing in the trade of the parent country.

Such was the basis of our system, as established by the act of 1815, and such its true character. In the year in which this act was passed, a treaty was concluded with Great Britain, in strict conformity with its principles, in regard to her European dominions. To her Colonies, however, in the West Indies and on this continent it was not extended, the British Government claiming the exclusive supply of those Colonies, and from our own ports, and of the productions of the Colonies in return in her own vessels. To this claim the United States could not assent, and, in consequence, each party suspended the intercourse in the vessels of the other by a prohibition which still exists.

The same conditions were offered to France, but not accepted. Her government has demanded other conditions more favorable to her navigation, and which should also give extraordinary encouragement to her manufactures and productions in ports of the United States. To these it was thought improper to accede, and, in consequence, the restrictive regulations which had been adopted on her part, being countervailed on the part of the United

States, the direct commerce between the two countries

in the

Ivessels of each party has been, in a great measure, suspended. It is much to be regretted that, although a negotiation has been long pending, such is the diversity of views entertained on the various points which have been brought into discussion, that there does not appear to be any reasonable prospect of its early

conclusion.

It is my duty to state, as a cause of very great regret, that very serious differences have occurred in this negotiation respect ing the construction of the eighth article of the treaty of 1803, by which Louisiana was ceded to the United States, and likewise respecting the seizure of the Apollo, in 1820, for a violation of our revenue laws. The claim of the Government of France has excited not less surprise than concern, because there does not

appear to be a just foundation for it in either instance. By the eighth article of the treaty referred to it is stipulated that, after the expiration of twelve years, during which time it was provided by the seventh or preceding article that the vessels of France and Spain should be admitted into the ports of the ceded territory without paying higher duties on merchandise or tonnage on the vessels, than such as were paid by citizens of the United States, the ships of France should forever afterward be placed on the footing of the most favored nation. By the obvious construction of this article, it is presumed that it was intended that no favor should be granted to any power, in those ports, to which France should not be forthwith entitled; nor should any accommodation be allowed to another power, on conditions to which she would not also be entitled on the same conditions. Under this construction no favor or accommodation could be granted to any power to the prejudice of France. By allowing the equivalent allowed by those powers, she would always stand in those ports on the footing of the most favored nation. But if this article should be so construed as that France should enjoy, of right, and without paying the equivalent, all the advantages of such conditions as might be allowed to other powers, in return for important concessions made by them, then the whole character of the stipulations would be changed. She would not only be placed on the footing of the most favored nation, but on a footing held by no other nation. She would enjoy all the advantages allowed to them, in consideration of like advantages allowed to us, free from every and any condition whatever.

As little cause has the Government of France to complain of the seizure of the Apollo and the removal of other vessels from the waters of the St. Mary's. It will not be denied that every nation has a right to regulate its commercial system as it thinks fit, and to enforce the collection of its revenue, provided it be done without an invasion of the rights of other powers. The violation of its revenue laws is an offense which all nations punish, the punishment of which gives no just cause of complaint to the power to which the offenders belong, provided it be extended to all equally. In this case, every circumstance which occurred indicated a fixed purpose to violate our revenue laws. Had the party intended to have pursued a fair trade, he would have entered our ports and paid the duties; or had he intended to carry on a legitimate circuitous commerce with the United States, he