General Taylor, since the commencement of hostilities with Mexico, which has not yet been published, and the publication of which may not be deemed detrimental to the public service; also, the correspondence of the quartermaster-general, in relation to transportation for General Taylor's army; also, the reports of Brigadier-Generals Hamer and Quitman, of the operations of their respective brigades on the twenty-first of September last" (1846).

SPECIAL MESSAGE.

JANUARY 12, 1848.

To the House of Representatives of the United States :—

I HAVE carefully considered the resolution of the house of representa tives of the fourth instant, requesting the president to communicate to that house" any instructions which may have been given to any of the officers of the army or navy of the United States, or other persons, in regard to the return of President General Lopez de Santa Anna, or any other Mexican, to the republic of Mexico prior or subsequent to the order of the president or secretary of war, issued in January, 1846, for the march of the army from the Nueces river, across the stupendous deserts' which intervene, to the Rio Grande; that the date of all such instructions, orders, and correspondence, be set forth, together with the instructions and orders issued to Mr. Slidell at any time prior or subsequent to his departure for Mexico as minister plenipotentiary of the United States to that republic;" and requesting the president also to "communicate all the orders and correspondence of the government in relation to the return of General Paredes to Mexico."

I transmit herewith reports from the secretary of state, the secretary of war, and the secretary of the navy, with the documents accompanying the same, which contain all the information in the possession of the executive which it is deemed compatible with the public interests to communicate. For further information relating to the return of Santa Anna to Mexico, I refer you to my annual message of December 8, 1846. The facts and considerations stated in that message induced the order of the secretary of the navy to the commander of our squadron in the gulf of Mexico, a copy of which is herewith communicated. This order was issued simultaneously with the order to blockade the coasts of Mexico, both bearing date the thirteenth of May, 1846, the day on which the existence of the war with Mexico was recognised by Congress. It was issued solely upon the views of policy presented in that message, and without any understanding on the subject, direct or indirect, with Santa Anna or any other person.

General Paredes evaded the vigilance of our combined forces by land and sea, and made his way back to Mexico from the exile into which he had been driven, landing at Vera Cruz after that city and the castle of San Juan de Ulloa were in our military occupation, as will appear from the accompanying reports and documents.

The resolution calls for the "instructions and orders issued by Mr. Slidell, at any time prior or subsequent to his departure for Mexico, as minister plenipotentiary of the United States to that republic." The custom

ary and usual reservation contained in calls of either house of Congress upon the executive for information, relating to our intercourse with foreign nations, has been omitted in the resolution before me. The call of the house is unconditional. It is, that the information requested be commu nicated, and thereby be made public, whether, in the opinion of the executive (who is charged by the constitution with the duty of conducting negotiations with foreign powers), such information, when disclosed, would be prejudicial to the public interest or not. It has been a subject of serious deliberation with me whether I could, consistently with my constitutional duty and my sense of the public interests involved and to be affected by it, violate an important principle, always heretofore held sacred by my predecessors, as I should do by a compliance with the request of the house. President Washington, in a message to the house of representatives of the thirtieth of March, 1796, declined to comply with a request contained in a resolution of that body, to lay before them "a copy of the instructions to the minister of the United States who negotiated the treaty with the king of Great Britain," "together with the correspondence and other documents relative to said treaty, excepting such of the said papers as any existing negotiations may render improper to be disclosed." In assigning his reasons for declining to comply with the call, he declared that "the nature of foreign negotiations requires caution, and their success must often depend upon secrecy; and, even when brought to a conclusion, a full disclosure of all the measures, demands, and eventual concessions, which may have been proposed or contemplated, would be extremely impolitic; for this might have a pernicious influence on future negotiations, or produce immediate inconveniences, perhaps danger and mischief, in relation to other powers. The necessity of such caution and secrecy was one cogent reason for vesting the power of making treaties in the president, with the advice and consent of the senate-the principle on which that body was formed confining it to a small number of members. To admit, then, a right in the house of representatives to demand, and to have, as a matter of course, all the papers respecting a negotiation with a foreign power, would be to establish a dangerous precedent." In that case, the instructions and documents called for related to a treaty which had been concluded and ratified by the president and senate, and the negotiations in relation to it had been terminated. There was an express reservation, too, "excepting" from the call all such papers as related to " any existing negotiations" which it might be improper to disclose In that case, President Washington deemed it to be a violation of an important principle, the establishment of a "dangerous precedent," and prejudicial to the public interests, to comply with the call of the house. Without deeming it to be necessary on the present occasion to examine or decide upon the other reasons assigned by him for his refusal to communicate the information requested by the house, the one which is herein recited is in my judgment conclusive in the case under consideration.

Indeed, the objections to complying with the request of the house contained in the resolution before me, are much stronger than those which existed in the case of the resolution in 1796. This resolution calls for the "instructions and orders" to the minister of the United States to Mexico, which relate to negotiations which have not been terminated, and which may be resumed. The information called for respects negotiations which the United States offered to open with Mexico immediately preceding the commencement of the existing war. The instructions given to

the minister of the United States relate to the differences between the two countries out of which the war grew, and the terms of adjustment which we were prepared to offer to Mexico in our anxiety to prevent the war. These differences still remain unsettled; and to comply with the call of the house would be to make public, through that channel, and to communicate to Mexico, now a public enemy engaged in war, information which could not fail to produce serious embarrassment in any future negotiation between the two countries. I have heretofore communicated to Congress all the correspondence of the minister of the United States to Mexico which, in the existing state of our relations with that republic, can, in my judgment, be at this time communicated without serious injury to the public interest.

Entertaining this conviction, and with a sincere desire to furnish any information which may be in possession of the executive department, and which either house of Congress may at any time request, I regard it to be my constitutional right and my solemn duty, under the circumstances of this case, to decline a compliance with the request of the house contained in their resolution.

I COMMUNICATE herewith a report of the secretary of war, with the accompanying documents, in answer to the resolution of the senate, of the twenty-fourth instant, requesting to be furnished with "copies of the letters, reports, or other communications, which are referred to in the letter of General Zachary Taylor, dated at New Orleans, twentieth July, 1845, and addressed to the secretary of war; and which are so referred to, as containing the views of General Taylor, previously communicated, in regard to the line proper to be occupied at that time by the troops of the United States; and any similar communication, from any officer of the army, on the same subject."

SPECIAL MESSAGE

JANUARY 24, 1848.

To the Senate of the United States :

In compliance with the request of the senate, in their resolution of the thirteenth instant, I herewith communicate a report from the secretary of war, with the accompanying correspondence, containing the information called for, in relation to forced contributions in Mexico.

SPECIAL MESSAGE.

FEBRUARY 2, 1848.

To the Senate of the United States :—

In answer to a resolution of the senate of the thirteenth of January, 1848, calling for information on the subject of the negotiation between the commissioner of the United States and the commissioners of Mexico, during the suspension of hostilities after the battles of Contreras and Churubusco, I transmit a report from the secretary of state, and the documents which accompany it.

I deem it proper to add, that the invitation from the commissioner of the United States to submit the proposition of boundary, referred to in his despatch (No. 15) of the fourth of September, 1847, here with communicated, was unauthorized by me, and was promptly disapproved; and this disapproval was communicated to the commissioner of the United States with the least possible delay.

To the Senate of the

SPECIAL MESSAGE.

FEBRUARY 10, 1848.

United States :

IN answer to the resolution of the senate of the first instant, requesting to be informed whether "any taxes, duties, or imposts," have been

laid and collected upon goods and merchandise, belonging to citizens of the United States, exported by such citizens from the United States to Mexico; and, if so, what is the rate of such duties, and what amount has been collected; and, also, by what authority of law the same have been laid and collected," I refer the senate to my annual message of the seventh of December last, in which I informed Congress that orders had been given to our military and naval commanders in Mexico, to adopt the policy, as far as practicable, of levying military contributions upon the enemy for the support of our army.

As one of the modes adopted for levying such contributions, it was stated in that message that, "On the thirty-first of March last, I caused an order to be issued to our military and naval commanders to levy and collect a military contribution upon all vessels and merchandise which might enter any of the ports of Mexico in our military occupation, and to apply such contributions toward defraying the expenses of the war. By virtue of the right of conquest and the laws of war, the conqueror, consulting his own safety or convenience, may either exclude foreign commerce altogether from all such ports, or permit it upon such terms and conditions as he may prescribe. Before the principal ports of Mexico were blockaded by our navy, the revenue derived from import duties, under the laws of Mexico, was paid into the Mexican treasury. After these ports had fallen into our military possession, the blockade was raised and commerce with them permitted upon prescribed terms and conditions. They were opened to the trade of all nations upon the payment of duties more moderate in their amount than those which had been previously levied by Mexico and the

revenue, which was formerly paid into the Mexican treasury, was directed to be collected by our military and naval officers, and applied to the use of our army and navy. Care was taken that the officers, soldiers, and sailors, of our army and navy, should be exempted from the operations of the order; and as the merchandise imported, upon which the order operated, must be consumed by Mexican citizens, the contributions exacted were, in effect, the seizure of the public revenues of Mexico and the application of them to our own use. In directing this measure, the object was to compel the enemy to contribute, as far as practicable, toward the expenses of the war."

A copy of the order referred to, with the documents accompanying it, has been communicated to Congress.

The order operated upon the vessels and merchandise of all nations, whether belonging to citizens of the United States or to foreigners, arriving in any of the ports in Mexico in our military occupation. The contribu

tions levied were a tax upon Mexican citizens, who were the consumers of the merchandise imported; but, for the permit or license granted by the order, all vessels and merchandise belonging to citizens of the United States were, necessarily, excluded from all commerce with Mexico from the commencement of the war. The coasts and ports of Mexico were ordered to be placed under blockade on the day Congress declared the war to exist; and, by the laws of nations, the blockade applied to the vessels of the United States as well as to the vessels of all other nations. Had no blockade been declared, or had any of our merchant-vessels entered any of the ports of Mexico not blockaded, they would have been liable to be seized and condemned as lawful prize by the Mexican authorities. When the order was issued, it operated as a privilege to the vessels of the United States as well as to those of foreign countries to enter the ports held by our arms upon prescribed terms and conditions. It was altogether op

tional with citizens of the United States and foreigners to avail themselves of the privileges granted upon the terms prescribed.

Citizens of the United States and foreigners have availed themselves of these privileges.

No principle is better established than that a nation at war has the right of shifting the burden off itself and imposing it on the enemy by exacting military contributions. The mode of making such exactions must be left to the discretion of the conqueror, but it should be exercised in a manner conformable to the rules of civilized warfare.

The right to levy these contributions is essential to the successful prosecution of war in an enemy's country, and the practice of nations has been in accordance with this principle. It is as clearly necessary as the right to fight battles, and its exercise is often essential to the subsistence of the army.

Entertaining no doubt that the military right to exclude commerce altogether from the ports of the enemy in our military occupation included the minor right of admitting it under prescribed conditions, it became an important question, at the date of the order, whether there should be a discrimination between vessels and cargoes belonging to citizens of the United States and vessels and cargoes belonging to neutral nations.

Had the vessels and cargoes belonging to citizens of the United States been admitted without the payment of any duty, while a duty was levied on foreign vessels and cargoes, the object of the order would have been defeated The whole commerce would have been conducted in American