SPECIAL MESSAGES.
WASHINGTON, December 9, 1850.
To the House of Representatives:
I communicate to the House of Representatives a translation of a note of the 5th instant addressed to the Secretary of State by the minister of the Mexican Republic accredited to this Government, relative to a subject[2] to which the attention of Congress was invited in my message at the opening of the present session.
MILLARD FILLMORE.
[The same message was sent to the Senate.]
WASHINGTON, December 12, 1850.
To the Senate of the United States:
I herewith transmit a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying documents, relating to the African slave trade, in answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 28th of August last.
MILLARD FILLMORE.
WASHINGTON, December 13, 1850.
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
I have the pleasure of announcing to Congress the agreement on the part of Texas to the propositions offered to that State by the act of Congress approved on the 9th day of September last, entitled "An act proposing to the State of Texas the establishment of her northern and western boundaries, the relinquishment by the said State of all territory claimed by her exterior to said boundaries and of all her claims upon the United States, and to establish a Territorial government for New Mexico."
By the terms of that act it was required that the agreement of Texas to the propositions contained in it should be given on or before the 1st day of December, 1850. An authenticated transcript of a law passed by the legislature of Texas on the 25th day of November, agreeing to and accepting the propositions contained in the act of Congress, has been received. This law, after reciting the provisions of the act of Congress, proceeds to enact and declare as follows, viz:
Therefore, first. Be it enacted by the legislature of the State of Texas, That the State of Texas hereby agrees to and accepts said propositions; and it is hereby declared that the said State shall be bound by the terms thereof according to their true import and meaning. Second. That the governor of this State be, and is hereby, requested to cause a copy of this act, authenticated under the seal of the State, to be furnished to the President of the United States by mail as early as practicable, and also a copy thereof, certified in like manner, to be transmitted to each of the Senators and Representatives of Texas in Congress. And that this act take effect from and after its passage.
C. G. KEENAN,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
JOHN A. GREER,
President of the Senate.
Approved, November 25, 1850.
P.H. BELL.
From the common sources of public information it would appear that a very remarkable degree of unanimity prevailed, not only in the legislature, but among the people of Texas, in respect to the agreement of the State to that which had been proposed by Congress.
I can not refrain from congratulating Congress and the country on the success of this great and leading measure of conciliation and peace. The difficulties felt and the dangers apprehended from the vast acquisitions of territory under the late treaty with Mexico seem now happily overcome by the wisdom of Congress. Within that territory there already exists one State, respectable for the amount of her population, distinguished for singular activity and enterprise, and remarkable in many respects from her condition and history. This new State has come into the Union with manifestations not to be mistaken of her attachment to that Constitution and that Government which now embrace her and her interests within their protecting and beneficent control.
Over the residue of the acquired territories regular Territorial governments are now established in the manner which has been most usual in the history of this Government. Various other acts of Congress may undoubtedly be requisite for the benefit as well as for the proper government of these so distant parts of the country. But the same legislative wisdom which has triumphed over the principal difficulties and accomplished the main end may safely be relied on for whatever measures may yet be found necessary to perfect its work, so that the acquisition of these vast regions to the United States may rather strengthen than weaken the Constitution, which is over us all, and the Union, which affords such ample daily proofs of its inestimable value.
MILLARD FILLMORE.
WASHINGTON, December 17, 1850.
To the Senate of the United States:
I herewith transmit a letter from the Secretary of War, communicating a report of a board of officers to which, in pursuance of a resolution of the Senate passed on the 30th of September last, were submitted the questions proposed therein, relative to the expediency and necessity of creating additional grades of commissioned officers in the Army and of enacting provisions authorizing officers of the Army to exercise civil functions in emergencies to be enumerated and restraining them from usurping the powers of civil functionaries.
MILLARD FILLMORE.
WASHINGTON, December 30, 1850.
To the Senate of the United States:
I herewith transmit to the Senate, in reply to their resolution of the 26th instant, a report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying papers.[3]
MILLARD FILLMORE.
WASHINGTON, January 3, 1851.
To the House of Representatives:
By a resolution passed by the House of Representatives on the 24th day of July, 1850, the President was requested to cause to be prepared and communicated to the House certain opinions of the Attorneys-General therein specified. On inquiry I learned that the force employed in the Attorney-General's Office was not sufficient to perform this work; consequently, I employed Benjamin F. Hall, esq., a counselor at law, on the 9th day of September last, to execute it, and requested him to commence it immediately. I informed him that I was not authorized to give any other assurances as to compensation than that it rested with Congress to provide and fix it. I believe Mr. Hall to be in all respects competent and well fitted for the task which he has undertaken, and diligent in the performance of it; and it appears to me that the most just mode of compensation will be to make a per diem allowance of $8 per day for the time actually employed, to be paid on the certificate of the Attorney-General.
I also transmit herewith a portion of the manuscript prepared in pursuance of said resolution, with a letter from Mr. Hall to me indicating the mode in which he thinks the work should be prepared and printed, which appears to me worthy of consideration and adoption by the House.
MILLARD FILLMORE.
WASHINGTON, January 10, 1851.
To the Senate of the United States:
I have the honor herewith to transmit to the Senate a communication from the Secretary of the Navy on the subject of the discipline of the Navy, suggesting such amendments of the law as may be necessary in consequence of the recent act abolishing flogging; to which I respectfully invite the immediate attention of Congress.
MILLARD FILLMORE.
WASHINGTON, January 14, 1851.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives adopted July 18, 1850, requesting the President to communicate his views on sundry questions of rank, precedence, and command among officers of the Army and officers of the Navy, respectively, and of relative rank between officers of the Army and Navy when brought into cooperation, I caused to be convened a board of intelligent and experienced officers in each branch of the service to consider the matters involved in said resolutions and to report their opinion for my advice and information.
Their reports have been made, and I have the honor herewith to submit copies of them, together with bills drafted substantially in accordance therewith, on the subject of rank in each branch of the service.
The subject is one of great interest, and it is highly important that it should be settled by legislative authority and with as little delay as possible consistently with its proper examination.
The points on which it will be perceived that the two boards disagree in regard to relative rank between officers of the Army and Navy are not esteemed of very great practical importance, and the adoption of the rule proposed by either would be acceptable to the Executive.
But even if a decision on these shall be suspended, it is hoped that the bills which are designed to regulate rank, precedence, and command in the Army and Navy as separate branches of service may receive the sanction of Congress, with such amendments as may be deemed appropriate, in the course of the present session.
MILLARD FILLMORE.
WASHINGTON, February 3, 1851.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit to the Senate a report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying papers,[4] in answer to their resolution of the 30th ultimo.
MILLARD FILLMORE.
WASHINGTON, February 12, 1851.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying documents,[5] in answer to the Senate's resolution of the 1st instant.
MILLARD FILLMORE.
WASHINGTON, February 13, 1851.
To the Senate of the United States:
I herewith communicate to the Senate, for its consideration, a general convention between the United States and the Swiss Confederation, concluded and signed at Berne on the 25th day of November last by Mr. A. Dudley Mann on the part of the United States and by Messrs. Druey and Frey-Hérosée on the part of the Swiss Confederation. I communicate at the same time a copy of the instructions under which Mr. Mann acted and his dispatch of the 30th November last, explanatory of the articles of the convention.
In submitting this convention to the consideration of the Senate I feel it my duty to invite its special attention to the first and fifth articles. These articles appear to contain provisions quite objectionable, if, indeed, they can be considered as properly embraced in the treaty-making power.
The second clause of the first article is in these words:
In the United States of America citizens of Switzerland shall be received and treated in each State upon the same footing and upon the same conditions as citizens of the United States born in or belonging to other States of the Union.
It is well known that according to the Constitution of the United States a citizen of one State may hold lands in any other State; and States have, sometimes by general, sometimes by special, laws, removed the disabilities attaching to foreigners not naturalized in regard to the holding of land. But this is not supposed to be a power properly to be exercised by the President and Senate in concluding and ratifying a treaty with a foreign state. The authority naturally belongs to the State within whose limits the land may lie. The naturalization of foreigners is provided for by the laws of the United States, in pursuance of the provision of the Constitution; but when, under the operation of these laws, foreigners become citizens of the United States, all would seem to be done which it is in the power of this Government to do to enable foreigners to hold land. The clause referred to, therefore, appears to me inadmissible.
The fourth clause of the same article provides, among other things, that citizens of Switzerland may, within the United States, acquire, possess, and alienate personal and real estate, and the fifth article grants them the power of disposing of their real estate, which, perhaps, would be no otherwise objectionable, if it stood by itself, than as it would seem to imply a power to hold that of which they are permitted to dispose.
These objections, perhaps, may be removed by striking out the second clause of the first article and the words "and real" in the fourth clause. An amendment similar to the last here suggested was made by the Senate in the convention between the United States and the King of Bavaria, the ratification of which, as amended, the Senate advised and consented to on the 15th day of March, 1845.
But there is another and a decisive objection, arising from the last clause in the first article. That clause is in these words:
On account of the tenor of the federal constitution of Switzerland, Christians alone are entitled to the enjoyment of the privileges guaranteed by the present article in the Swiss Cantons. But said Cantons are not prohibited from extending the same privileges to citizens of the United States of other religious persuasions.
It appears from this that Christians alone are, in some of the Swiss Cantons, entitled to the enjoyment of privileges guaranteed by the first article, although the Cantons themselves are not prohibited from extending the same privileges to citizens of the United States of other religious persuasions.
It is quite certain that neither by law, nor by treaty, nor by any other official proceeding is it competent for the Government of the United States to establish any distinction between its citizens founded on differences in religious beliefs. Any benefit or privilege conferred by law or treaty on one must be common to all, and we are not at liberty, on a question of such vital interest and plain constitutional duty, to consider whether the particular case is one in which substantial inconvenience or injustice might ensue. It is enough that an inequality would be sanctioned hostile to the institutions of the United States and inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws.
Nor can the Government of the United States rely on the individual Cantons of Switzerland for extending the same privileges to other citizens of the United States as this article extends to Christians. It is indispensable not only that every privilege granted to any of the citizens of the United States should be granted to all, but also that the grant of such privilege should stand upon the same stipulation and assurance by the whole Swiss Confederation as those of other articles of the convention.
There have been instances, especially some of recent occurrence, in which the Executive has transmitted treaties to the Senate with suggestions of amendment, and I have therefore thought it not improper to send the present convention to the Senate, inviting its attention to such amendments as appeared to me to be important, although I have entertained considerable doubt whether it would not be better to send back the convention for correction in the objectionable particulars before laying it before the Senate for ratification.
MILLARD FILLMORE.
WASHINGTON, February 13, 1851.
To the Senate of the United States:
In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 10th instant, calling for information relative to a contract alleged to have been made by Mr. I.D. Marks with the Mexican Government, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the documents[6] which accompanied it.
MILLARD FILLMORE.
WASHINGTON, February 13, 1851.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 28th of January, 1851, I have the honor to transmit herewith reports from the Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury, giving the required correspondence in the case of the British ship Albion, seized in Oregon for an alleged violation of the revenue laws.
MILLARD FILLMORE.
WASHINGTON, February 15, 1851.
To the Senate of the United States:
In addition to the information heretofore communicated, I now transmit to the Senate a report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying papers,[7] in answer to their resolution of the 28th ultimo.
MILLARD FILLMORE.
WASHINGTON, February 15, 1851.
To the Senate of the United States:
I herewith transmit to the Senate a report[8] from the Secretary of State, in answer to their resolution of the 10th instant.
MILLARD FILLMORE.
WASHINGTON, February 18, 1851.
The PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE:
In addition to the papers already transmitted to the Senate in compliance with its resolution of the 28th ultimo, I have the honor herewith to transmit an additional report[9] from the Secretary of the Treasury.
MILLARD FILLMORE.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, February 19, 1851.
To the Senate of the United States:
I have received the resolution of the Senate of the 18th instant, requesting me to lay before that body, if not incompatible with the public interest, any information I may possess in regard to an alleged recent case of a forcible resistance to the execution of the laws of the United States in the city of Boston, and to communicate to the Senate, under the above conditions, what means I have adopted to meet the occurrence, and whether in my opinion any additional legislation is necessary to meet the exigency of the case and to more vigorously execute existing laws.
The public newspapers contain an affidavit of Patrick Riley, a deputy marshal for the district of Massachusetts, setting forth the circumstances of the case, a copy of which affidavit is herewith communicated. Private and unofficial communications concur in establishing the main facts of this account, but no satisfactory official information has as yet been received; and in some important respects the accuracy of the account has been denied by persons whom it implicates. Nothing could be more unexpected than that such a gross violation of law, such a high-handed contempt of the authority of the United States, should be perpetrated by a band of lawless confederates at noonday in the city of Boston, and in the very temple of justice. I regard this flagitious proceeding as being a surprise not unattended by some degree of negligence; nor do I doubt that if any such act of violence had been apprehended thousands of the good citizens of Boston would have presented themselves voluntarily and promptly to prevent it. But the danger does not seem to have been timely made known or duly appreciated by those who were concerned in the execution of the process. In a community distinguished for its love of order and respect for the laws, among a people whose sentiment is liberty and law, and not liberty without law nor above the law, such an outrage could only be the result of sudden violence, unhappily too much unprepared for to be successfully resisted. It would be melancholy indeed if we were obliged to regard this outbreak against the constitutional and legal authority of the Government as proceeding from the general feeling of the people in a spot which is proverbially called "the Cradle of American Liberty." Such, undoubtedly, is not the fact. It violates without question the general sentiment of the people of Boston and of a vast majority of the whole people of Massachusetts, as much as it violates the law, defies the authority of the Government, and disgraces those concerned in it, their aiders and abettors.
It is, nevertheless, my duty to lay before the Senate, in answer to its resolution, some important facts and considerations connected with the subject.
A resolution of Congress of September 23, 1789, declared:
That it be recommended to the legislatures of the several States to pass laws making it expressly the duty of the keepers of their jails to receive and safe keep therein all prisoners committed under the authority of the United States until they shall be discharged by the course of the laws thereof, under the like penalties as in the case of prisoners committed under the authority of such States respectively; the United States to pay for the use and keeping of such jails at the rate of 50 cents per month for each prisoner that shall, under their authority, be committed thereto during the time such prisoner shall be therein confined, and also to support such of said prisoners as shall be committed for offenses.
A further resolution of Congress, of the 3d of March, 1791, provides that—
Whereas Congress did, by a resolution of the 23d day of September, 1789, recommend to the several States to pass laws making it expressly the duty of the keepers of their jails to receive and safe keep therein all prisoners committed under the authority of the United States: In order, therefore, to insure the administration of justice— Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in case any State shall not have complied with the said recommendation the marshal in such State, under the direction of the judge of the district, be authorized to hire a convenient place to serve as a temporary jail, and to make the necessary provision for the safe-keeping of prisoners committed under the authority of the United States until permanent provision shall be made by law for that purpose; and the said marshal shall be allowed his reasonable expenses incurred for the above purposes, to be paid out of the Treasury of the United States.
And a resolution of Congress of March 3, 1821, provides that—
Where any State or States, having complied with the recommendation of Congress in the resolution of the 23d day of September, 1789, shall have withdrawn, or shall hereafter withdraw, either in whole or in part, the use of their jails for prisoners committed under the authority of the United States, the marshal in such State or States, under the direction of the judge of the district, shall be, and hereby is, authorized and required to hire a convenient place to serve as a temporary jail, and to make the necessary provision for the safe-keeping of prisoners committed under the authority of the United States until permanent provision shall be made by law for that purpose; and the said marshal shall be allowed his reasonable expenses incurred for the above purposes, to be paid out of the Treasury of the United States.
These various provisions of the law remain unrepealed.
By the law of Massachusetts, as that law stood before the act of the legislature of that State of the 24th of March, 1843, the common jails in the respective counties were to be used for the detention of any persons detained or committed by the authority of the courts of the United States, as well as by the courts and magistrates of the State. But these provisions were abrogated and repealed by the act of the legislature of Massachusetts of the 24th of March, 1843.
That act declares that—
No judge of any court of record of this Commonwealth and no justice of the peace shall hereafter take cognizance or grant a certificate in cases that may arise under the third section of an act of Congress passed February 12, 1793, and entitled "An act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the service of their masters," to any person who claims any other person as a fugitive slave within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth.
And it further declares that—
No sheriff, deputy sheriff, coroner, constable, jailer, or other officer of this Commonwealth shall hereafter arrest or detain, or aid in the arrest or detention or imprisonment, in any jail or other building belonging to this Commonwealth, or to any county, city, or town thereof, of any person for the reason that he is claimed as a fugitive slave.
And it further declares that—
Any justice of the peace, sheriff, deputy sheriff, coroner, constable, or jailer who shall offend against the provisions of this law by in any way acting, directly or indirectly, under the power conferred by the third section of the act of Congress aforementioned shall forfeit a sum not exceeding $1,000 for every such offense to the use of the county where said offense is committed, or shall be subject to imprisonment not exceeding one year in the county jail.
This law, it is obvious, had two objects. The first was to make it a penal offense in all officers and magistrates of the Commonwealth to exercise the powers conferred on them by the act of Congress of the 12th of February, 1793, entitled "An act respecting fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the service of their masters," and which powers they were fully competent to perform up to the time of this inhibition and penal enactment; second, to refuse the use of the jails of the State for the detention of any person claimed as a fugitive slave.
It is deeply to be lamented that the purpose of these enactments is quite apparent. It was to prevent, as far as the legislature of the State could prevent, the laws of Congress passed for the purpose of carrying into effect that article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that "no person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due" from being carried into effect. But these acts of State legislation, although they may cause embarrassment and create expense, can not derogate either from the duty or the authority of Congress to carry out fully and fairly the plain and imperative constitutional provision for the delivery of persons bound to labor in one State and escaping into another to the party to whom such labor may be due. It is quite clear that by the resolution of Congress of March 3, 1821, the marshal of the United States in any State in which the use of the jails of the State has been withdrawn, in whole or in part, from the purpose of the detention of persons committed under the authority of the United States is not only empowered, but expressly required, under the direction of the judge of the district, to hire a convenient place for the safe-keeping of prisoners committed under authority of the United States. It will be seen from papers accompanying this communication that the attention of the marshal of Massachusetts was distinctly called to this provision of the law by a letter from the Secretary of the Navy of the date of October 28 last. There is no official information that the marshal has provided any such place for the confinement of his prisoners. If he has not, it is to be regretted that this power was not exercised by the marshal under the direction of the district judge immediately on the passage of the act of the legislature of Massachusetts of the 24th of March, 1843, and especially that it was not exercised on the passage of the fugitive-slave law of the last session, or when the attention of the marshal was afterwards particularly drawn to it.
It is true that the escape from the deputy marshals in this case was not owing to the want of a prison or place of confinement, but still it is not easy to see how the prisoner could have been safely and conveniently detained during an adjournment of the hearing for some days without such place of confinement. If it shall appear that no such place has been obtained, directions to the marshal will be given to lose no time in the discharge of this duty.
I transmit to the Senate the copy of a proclamation issued by me on the 18th instant in relation to these unexpected and deplorable occurrences in Boston, together with copies of instructions from the Departments of War and Navy relative to the general subject. And I communicate also copies of telegraphic dispatches transmitted from the Department of State to the district attorney and marshal of the United States for the district of Massachusetts and their answers thereto.
In regard to the last branch of the inquiry made by the resolution of the Senate, I have to observe that the Constitution declares that "the President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed," and that "he shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States," and that "Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." From which it appears that the Army and Navy are by the Constitution placed under the control of the Executive; and probably no legislation of Congress could add to or diminish the power thus given but by increasing or diminishing or abolishing altogether the Army and Navy. But not so with the militia. The President can not call the militia into service, even to execute the laws or repel invasions, but by the authority of acts of Congress passed for that purpose. But when the militia are called into service in the manner prescribed by law, then the Constitution itself gives the command to the President. Acting on this principle, Congress, by the act of February 28, 1795, authorized the President to call forth the militia to repel invasion and "suppress insurrections against a State government, and to suppress combinations against the laws of the United States, and cause the laws to be faithfully executed." But the act proceeds to declare that whenever it may be necessary, in the judgment of the President, to use the military force thereby directed to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within a limited time. These words are broad enough to require a proclamation in all cases where militia are called out under that act, whether to repel invasion or suppress an insurrection or to aid in executing the laws. This section has consequently created some doubt whether the militia could be called forth to aid in executing the laws without a previous proclamation. But yet the proclamation seems to be in words directed only against insurgents, and to require them to disperse, thereby implying not only an insurrection, but an organized, or at least an embodied, force. Such a proclamation in aid of the civil authority would often defeat the whole object by giving such notice to persons intended to be arrested that they would be enabled to fly or secrete themselves. The force may be wanted sometimes to make the arrest, and also sometimes to protect the officer after it is made, and to prevent a rescue. I would therefore suggest that this section be modified by declaring that nothing therein contained shall be construed to require any previous proclamation when the militia are called forth, either to repel invasion, to execute the laws, or suppress combinations against them, and that the President may make such call and place such militia under the control of any civil officer of the United States to aid him in executing the laws or suppressing such combinations; and while so employed they shall be paid by and subsisted at the expense of the United States.
Congress, not probably adverting to the difference between the militia and the Regular Army, by the act of March 3, 1807, authorized the President to use the land and naval forces of the United States for the same purposes for which he might call forth the militia, and subject to the same proclamation. But the power of the President under the Constitution, as Commander of the Army and Navy, is general, and his duty to see the laws faithfully executed is general and positive; and the act of 1807 ought not to be construed as evincing any disposition in Congress to limit or restrain this constitutional authority. For greater certainty, however, it may be well that Congress should modify or explain this act in regard to its provisions for the employment of the Army and Navy of the United States, as well as that in regard to calling forth the militia. It is supposed not to be doubtful that all citizens, whether enrolled in the militia or not, may be summoned as members of the posse comitatus, either by the marshal or a commissioner according to law, and that it is their duty to obey such summons. But perhaps it may be doubted whether the marshal or a commissioner can summon as the posse comitatus an organized militia force, acting under its own appropriate officers, without the consent of such officers. This point may deserve the consideration of Congress.
I use this occasion to repeat the assurance that so far as depends on me the laws shall be faithfully executed and all forcible opposition to them suppressed; and to this end I am prepared to exercise, whenever it may become necessary, the power constitutionally vested in me to the fullest extent. I am fully persuaded that the great majority of the people of this country are warmly and strongly attached to the Constitution, the preservation of the Union, the just support of the Government, and the maintenance of the authority of law. I am persuaded that their earnest wishes and the line of my constitutional duty entirely concur, and I doubt not firmness, moderation, and prudence, strengthened and animated by the general opinion of the people, will prevent the repetition of occurrences disturbing the public peace and reprobated by all good men.
MILLARD FILLMORE.
WASHINGTON, February 25, 1851.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to ratification, a convention between the United States and the Mexican Republic for the protection of a transit way across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, signed in the City of Mexico on the 25th ultimo.
Accompanying the treaty is a letter from Mr. P.A. Hargous, the present proprietor and holder of the privileges granted by Mexico, signifying his assent to and acceptance of the terms of its provisions. There is also an abstract of title to him from the original grantee and copies of the several powers and conveyances by which that title is derived to him. It may be well that these papers should be returned to be deposited among the archives of the Department of State.
The additional article of the treaty makes an unnecessary reference to the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth articles of the treaty of the 22d of June last, because the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth articles of the present treaty contain exactly the same provisions as those contained in the same articles of that treaty, as will appear from the copy of the treaty of the 22d of June last, herewith communicated.
MILLARD FILLMORE.
WASHINGTON, February 26, 1851.
To the Senate of the United States:
I herewith communicate to the Senate, for its consideration, a convention for the adjustment of certain claims of citizens of the United States against Her Most Faithful Majesty's Government,[10] concluded and signed this day in the city of Washington by the respective plenipotentiaries.
MILLARD FILLMORE.
WASHINGTON, February 27, 1851.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith a report of the Secretary of State, with accompanying documents,[11] in compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 17th ultimo.
MILLARD FILLMORE.
WASHINGTON, February 28, 1851.
To the Senate of the United States:
In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 16th ultimo, requesting information touching the difficulties between the British authorities and San Salvador, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the documents which accompanied it.
MILLARD FILLMORE.
WASHINGTON, March 1, 1851.
Hon. Howell Cobb,
Speaker of the House of Representatives:
I have the honor herewith to transmit to the House of Representatives manuscript No. 2 of the opinions of the Attorneys-General, prepared in pursuance of its resolution.
MILLARD FILLMORE.
WASHINGTON, March 3, 1851.
To the Senate of the United States:
In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 26th ultimo, calling for information respecting a forcible abduction of any citizen of the United States from the Territory of New Mexico and his conveyance within the limits of the Mexican Republic, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the documents which accompanied it.
MILLARD FILLMORE.