The proceeding of Captain Jones in taking possession of the town of Monterey, in the possessions of Mexico, was entirely of his own authority, and not in consequence of any orders or instructions of any kind given to him by the Government of the United States. For that proceeding he has been recalled, and the letter recalling him will be found among the papers herewith communicated. The resolution of the House of Representatives asks for "copies of all the instructions given to Captain Jones from the time of his appointment to the command of the said squadron, also copies of all communications received from him relating to his expedition for the occupation of the Californias," without confining the request to such instructions and correspondence as relate to the transactions at Monterey, and without the usual reservation of such portions of the instructions or correspondence as in the President's judgment could not be made public without prejudice or danger to the public interests. It may well be supposed that cases may arise even in time of peace in which it would be highly injurious to the country to make public at a particular moment the instructions under which a commander may be acting on a distant and foreign service. In such a case, should it arise, and in all similar cases the discretion of the Executive can not be controlled by the request of either House of Congress for the communication of papers. The duties which the Constitution and the laws devolve on the President must be performed by him under his official responsibility, and he is not at liberty to disregard high interests or thwart important public objects by untimely publications made against his own judgment, by whomsoever such publications may be requested. In the present case, not seeing that any injury is likely to arise from so doing, I have directed copies of all the papers asked for to be communicated; and I avail of the opportunity of transmitting also copies of sundry letters, as noted below. JOHN TYLER. WASHINGTON, February 20, 1843. To the House of Representatives: I transmit to the House of Representatives a report from the Secretary of State, accompanied by a copy of the correspondence* requested by their resolution of the 29th of December last. JOHN TYLER. WASHINGTON, February 20, 1843. To the Senate of the United States: I transmit to the Senate a report from the Secretary of State, in answer to their resolution of the 14th instant. JOHN TYLER. Between the consul-general of the United States at Tangier and the Government of Morocco. + Communicating a copy of the commission and instructions issued to Daniel Webster, Secretary of State, to treat with Lord Ashburton, special minister from Great Britain to the United States. To the Senate of the United States: WASHINGTON, February 24, 1843. I transmit to the Senate, in answer to their resolutions of the 20th of December and of the 9th instant, the inclosed copies of papers* from the Department of State, with an accompanying list. JOHN TYLER. To the House of Representatives: WASHINGTON, February 27, 1843. In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 22d instant, requesting me to communicate to the House "whatever correspondence or communication may have been received from the British Government respecting the President's construction of the late British treaty concluded at Washington as it concerns an alleged right to visit American vessels," I herewith transmit a report made to me by the Secretary of State. I have also thought proper to communicate copies of Lord Aberdeen's letter of the 20th December, 1841, to Mr. Everett, Mr. Everett's letter of the 23d December in reply thereto, and extracts from several letters of Mr. Everett to the Secretary of State. I can not forego the expression of my regret at the apparent purport of a part of Lord Aberdeen's dispatch to Mr. Fox. I had cherished the hope that all possibility of misunderstanding as to the true construction of the eighth article of the treaty lately concluded between Great Britain and the United States was precluded by the plain and well-weighed language in which it is expressed. The desire of both Governments is to put an end as speedily as possible to the slave trade, and that desire, 1 need scarcely add, is as strongly and as sincerely felt by the United States as it can be by Great Britain. Yet it must not be forgotten that the trade, though now universally reprobated, was up to a late period prosecuted by all who chose to engage in it, and there were unfortunately but very few Christian powers whose subjects were not permitted, and even encouraged, to share in the profits of what was regarded as a perfectly legitimate commerce. It originated at a period long before the United States had become independent and was carried on within our borders in opposition to the most earnest remonstrances and expostulations of some of the colonies in which it was most actively prosecuted. Those engaged in it were as little liable to inquiry or interruption as any others. Its character, thus fixed by common consent and general practice, could only be changed by the positive assent of each and every nation, expressed either in the form of municipal law or conventional arrangement. The United States led the way in efforts to suppress it. They claimed no right to dictate to others, but they resolved, without waiting for the *Correspondence with the United States minister to France relative to the quintuple treaty of December 20, 1841, and the Ashburton treaty of August 9, 1842. cooperation of other powers, to prohibit it to their own citizens and to visit its perpetration by them with condign punishment. I may safely affirm that it never occurred to this Government that any new maritime right accrued to it from the position it had thus assumed in regard to the slave trade. If before our laws for its suppression the flag of every nation might traverse the ocean unquestioned by our cruisers, this freedom was not, in our opinion, in the least abridged by our municipal legislation. Any other doctrine, it is plain, would subject to an arbitrary and evervarying system of maritime police, adopted at will by the great naval power for the time being, the trade of the world in any places or in any articles which such power might see fit to prohibit to its own subjects or citizens. A principle of this kind could scarcely be acknowledged without subjecting commerce to the risk of constant and harassing vexations. The attempt to justify such a pretension from the right to visit and detain ships upon reasonable suspicion of piracy would deservedly be exposed to universal condemnation, since it would be an attempt to convert an established rule of maritime law, incorporated as a principle into the international code by the consent of all nations, into a rule and principle adopted by a single nation and enforced only by its assumed authority. To seize and detain a ship upon suspicion of piracy, with probable cause and in good faith, affords no just ground either for complaint on the part of the nation whose flag she bears or claim of indemnity on the part of the owner. The universal law sanctions and the common good requires the existence of such a rule. The right under such circumstances not only to visit and detain but to search a ship is a perfect right and involves neither responsibility nor indemnity. But, with this single exception, no nation has in time of peace any authority to detain the ships of another upon the high seas on any pretext whatever beyond the limits of her territorial jurisdiction. And such, I am happy to find, is substantially the doctrine of Great Britain herself in her most recent official declarations, and even in those now communicated to the House. These declarations may well lead us to doubt whether the apparent difference between the two Governments is not rather one of definition than of principle. Not only is the right of search, properly so called, disclaimed by Great Britain, but even that of mere visit and inquiry is asserted with qualifications inconsistent with the idea of a perfect right. In the dispatch of Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Everett of the 20th of December, 1841, as also in that just received by the British minister in this country made to Mr. Fox, his lordship declares that if in spite of all the precaution which shall be used to prevent such occurrences an American ship, by reason of any visit or detention by a British cruiser, "should suffer loss and injury, it would be followed by prompt and ample remuneration ;" and in order to make more manifest her intentions in this respect, Lord Aberdeen in the dispatch of the 20th December makes By the President of the United States of Amenca A Proclamation. Whereas, the Congress of the United Itals, by vir day, them hav that by lve of the constitutional authordly vested in declared by then act; bearing date this the ad of the Republic of offences; a dale of war exists between that Government and the United States" Now, therefore, & James K. folk, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim the ame to all whom it and I do chicially and as may at enjoin on all persons holding offices, civic or mili. tary, under the authordes of the United States, that they be vigilant and jealous. discharging the duties respectively incident thereto. And I do moreover &t, hort all the good people of the United Fales, they love their country; they feel the wrongs which have forced on them the last resort of injured Nations, they consult the best miant under the blessing of Divine Providence, of abridging its calamities; that they exert themselves in preserving order, in promoting concorse maintaining the authority and the efficacy of the laws and in supporting and invigorating all the be adopted by the constituted authorities, for of speedy a just and an honorable peace. In leitimony whereof. I have hereunto est my hand, and caused the real of the United States to be affixed to these presenti which faini may a |