direction to the Government anti-republican and dangerous. All history tells us that a free people should be watchful of delegated power, and should never acquiesce in a practice which will diminish their control over it. This obligation, so universal in its application to all the principles of a republic, is peculiarly so in ours, where the formation of parties founded on sectional interests is so much fostered by the extent of our territory. These interests, represented by candidates for the Presidency, are constantly prone, in the zeal of party and selfish objects, to generate influences unmindful of the general good, and forgetful of the restraints which the great body of the people would enforce, if they were, in no contingency, to use the right of expressing their will. The experience of our country, from the formation of the Government to the present day, demonstrates that the people cannot too soon adopt some stronger safeguard for their right to elect the highest officers known to the Constitution, than is contained in that sacred instrument as it now stands.

It is my duty to call the particular attention of Congress to the present condition of the District of Columbia. From whatever cause the great depression has arisen which now exists in the pecuniary concerns of the District, it is proper that its situation should be fully understood, and such relief or remedies provided as are consistent with the powers of Congress. I earnestly recommend the extension of every political right to the citizens of the District which their true interests require, and which does not conflict with the provisions of the Constitution. It is believed that the laws for the government of the District require revisal and amendment, and that much good may be done by modifying the penal code, so as to give uniformity to its provisions.

Your attention is also invited to the defects which exist in the Judicial system of the United States. As at present organized, the States of the Union derive une-qual advantages from the Federal Judiciary, which have been so often pointed out, that I deem it unnecessary to repeat them here. It is hoped that the present Congress will extend to all the States that equality in respect to

the benefits of the laws of the Union which can only be secured by the uniformity and efficiency of the Judicial system.

With these observations upon the topics of general interest which are deemed worthy of your consideration, I leave them to your care, trusting that the legislative measures they call for will be met as the wants and the best interests of our beloved country demand.

FRENCH MESSAGE.

JANUARY 15, 1836.

To the Senate

and House of Representatives:

Gentlemen: In my message at the opening of your session, I informed you that our Charge d'Affaires at Paris had been instructed to ask for the final determination of the French Government, in relation to the payment of the indemnification, secured by the treaty of the 4th of July, 1831, and that when advices on the result should be received, it would be made the subject of a special communication.

In execution of this design, I now transmit to you the papers numbered from 1 to 13, inclusive, containing, among other things, the correspondence on this subject between our Charge d'Affaires and the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, from which it will be seen, that France requires, as a condition precedent to the execution of a treaty unconditionally ratified, and to the payment of a debt acknowledged by all the branches of her Government to be due, that certain explanations shall be made, of which she dictates the terms. These terms are such as that Government has already been officially informed cannot be complied with; and, if persisted in, they must be considered as a deliberate refusal on the

part of France to fulfil engagements binding by the law of nations, and held sacred by the whole civilized world. The nature of the act which France requires from this Government, is clearly set forth in the letter of the French Minister, marked No. 4. We will pay the money, says he, when "the Government of the United States is ready, on its part, to declare to us, by addressing its claim to us officially, in writing, that she regrets the misunderstanding which has arisen between the two countries; that this misunderstanding is founded on a mistake; that it never entered into its intention to call in question the good faith of the French Government, nor to take a menacing attitude towards France; and he adds, “if the Government of the United States does not give this assurance we shall be obliged to think that this misunderstanding is not the result of error." In the letter marked No. 6, the French Minister also remarks, that "the Government of the United States knows, that upon itself depends henceforward the execution of the treaty of July 4, 1831."

Obliged by the precise language thus used by the French Minister, to view it as a peremptory refusal to execute the treaty, except on terms incompatible with the honor and independence of the United States, and persuaded, that, on considering the correspondence now submitted to you, you can regard it in no other light, it becomes my duty to call your attention to such measures as the exigency of the case demands, if the claim of interfering in the communications between the different branches of our Government shall be persisted in. This pretension is rendered the more unreasonable by the fact, that the substance of the required explanation has been repeatedly and voluntarily given before it was insisted on as a condition-a condition the more humiliating, because it is demanded as the equivalent of a pecuniary consideration. Does France desire only a declaration that we had no intention to obtain our rights by an address to her fears rather than to her justice? She has already had it, frankly and explicity given by our Minister accredited to her Government, his act ratified by me, and my confirmation of it officially communicated by him, in

his letter to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, of the 25th of April, 1835, and repeated by my published approval of that letter after the passage of the bill of indemnification. Does France want a degrading, servile repetition of this act, in terms which she shall dictate, and which will involve an acknowledgement of her assumed right to interfere in our domestic councils? She will never obtain it. The spirit of the American people, the dignity of the Legislature, and the firm resolve of their Executive Government, forbid it.

As the answer of the French Minister to our Charge d'Affaires at Paris, contains an allusion to a letter addressed by him to the representative of France at this place, it now becomes proper to lay before you the correspondence had between that functionary and the Secretary of State relative to the latter, and to accompany the same with such explanations as will enable you to understand the course of the Executive in regard to it. Recurring to the historical statement made at the commencement of your session, of the origin and progress of our difficulties with France, it will be recollected that, on the return of our Minister to the United States, I caused my official approval of the explanations he had given to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, to be made public. As the French Government had noticed the message without its being officially communicated, it was not doubted that, if they were disposed to pay the money due to us, they would notice any public explanation of the Government of the United States in the same way. But, contrary to these well founded expectations, the French Ministry did not take this fair opportunity to relieve themselves from their unfortunate position, and to do justice to the United States.

Whilst, however, the Government of the United States was awaiting the movements of the French Government in perfect confidence that the difficulty was at an end, the Secretary of State received a call from the French Charge d'Affaires in Washington, who desired to read to him a letter he had received from the French Minister of Foreign Affairs. He was asked whether he was instructed or directed to make any official communication,