of the Treasury, under a special act of Congress for the settlement of certain claims of the relators on the Post-Office Department, which award the Postmaster-General declined to execute in full until he should receive further legislative direction on the subject. If the duty imposed on the Postmaster-General by that law was to be regarded as one of an official nature, belonging to his office as a branch of the executive, then it is obvious that the constitutional competency of the judiciary to direct and control him in its discharge was necessarily drawn in question; and if the duty so imposed on the Postmaster-General was to be considered as merely ministerial, and not executive, it yet remained to be shown that the circuit court of this District had authority to interfere by mandamus, such a power having never before been asserted or claimed by that court. With a view to the settlement of these important questions, the judgment of the circuit court was carried by a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States. In the opinion of that tribunal the duty imposed on the Postmaster-General was not an official executive duty, but one of a merely ministerial nature. The grave constitutional questions which had been discussed were therefore excluded from the decision of the case, the court, indeed, expressly admitting that with powers and duties properly belonging to the executive no other department can interfere by the writ of mandamus; and the question therefore resolved itself into this: Has Congress conferred upon the circuit court of this District the power to issue such a writ to an officer of the General Government commanding him to perform a ministerial act? A majority of the court have decided that it has, but have founded their decision upon a process of reasoning which in my judgment renders further legislative provision indispensable to the public interests and the equal administration of justice. It has long since been decided by the Supreme Court that neither that tribunal nor the circuit courts of the United States, held within the respective States, possess the power in question; but it is now held that this power, denied to both of these high tribunals (to the former by the Constitution and to the latter by Congress), has been by its legislation vested in the circuit court of this District. No such direct grant of power to the circuit court of this District is claimed, but it has been held to result by necessary implication from several sections of the law establishing the court. One of these sections declares that the laws of Maryland, as they existed at the time of the cession, should be in force in that part of the District ceded by that State, and by this provision the common law in civil and criminal cases, as it prevailed in Maryland in 1801, was established in that part of the District. In England the court of king's bench-because the Sovereign, who, according to the theory of the constitution, is the fountain of justice, originally sat there in person, and is still deemed to be present in construction of law-alone possesses the high power of issuing the writ of mandamus, not only to inferior jurisdictions and corporations, but also to magistrates and others, commanding them in the King's name to do what their duty requires in cases where there is a vested right and no other specific remedy. It has been held in the case referred to that as the Supreme Court of the United States is by the Constitution rendered incompetent to exercise this power, and as the circuit court of this District is a court of general jurisdiction in cases at common law, and the highest court of original jurisdiction in the District, the right to issue the writ of mandamus is incident to its common-law powers. Another ground relied upon to maintain the power in question is that it was included by fair construction in the powers granted to the circuit courts of the United States by the act "to provide for the more convenient organization of the courts of the United States," passed 13th February, 1801; that the act establishing the circuit court of this District, passed the 27th day of February, 1801, conferred upon that court and the judges thereof the same powers as were by law vested in the circuit courts of the United States and in the judges of the said courts; that the repeal of the first-mentioned act, which took place in the next year, did not divest the circuit court of this District of the authority in dispute, but left it still clothed with the powers over the subject which, it is conceded, were taken away from the circuit courts of the United States by the repeal of the act of 13th February, 1801. Admitting that the adoption of the laws of Maryland for a portion of this District confers on the circuit court thereof, in that portion, the transcendent extrajudicial prerogative powers of the court of king's bench in England, or that either of the acts of Congress by necessary implication authorizes the former court to issue a writ of mandamus to an officer of the United States to compel him to perform a ministerial duty, the consequences are in one respect the same. The result in either case is that the officers of the United States stationed in different parts of the United States are, in respect to the performance of their official duties, subject to different laws and a different supervision-those in the States to one rule, and those in the District of Columbia to another and a very different one. In the District their official conduct is subject to a judicial control from which in the States they are exempt. Whatever difference of opinion may exist as to the expediency of vesting such a power in the judiciary in a system of government constituted like that of the United States, all must agree that these disparaging discrepancies in the law and in the administration of justice ought not to be permitted to continue; and as Congress alone can provide the remedy, the subject is unavoidably presented to your consideration. M. VAN BUREN. SPECIAL MESSAGES. WASHINGTON, December 6, 1838. To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States: The act of the 1st July, 1836, to enable the Executive to assert and prosecute with effect the claim of the United States to the legacy bequeathed to them by James Smithson, late of London, having received its entire execution, and the amount recovered and paid into the Treasury having, agreeably to an act of the last session, been invested in State stocks, I deem it proper to invite the attention of Congress to the obligation now devolving upon the United States to fulfill the object of the bequest. In order to obtain such information as might serve to facilitate its attainment, the Secretary of State was directed in July last to apply to persons versed in science and familiar with the subject of public education for their views as to the mode of disposing of the fund best calculated to meet the intentions of the testator and prove most beneficial to mankind. Copies of the circular letter written in compliance with these directions, and of the answers to it received at the Department of State, are herewith communicated for the consideration of Congress. M. VAN BUREN. WASHINGTON, December 7, 1838. To the House of Representatives of the United States: I herewith transmit to the House of Representatives reports* from the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury, with accompanying documents, in answer to the resolution of the House of the 9th of July last. M. VAN BUREN. WASHINGTON, December 8, 1838. To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States: I herewith transmit a special report made to me by the Secretary of the Treasury, for your consideration, in relation to the recently discovered default of Samuel Swartwout, late collector of the customs at the port of New York. I would respectfully invite the early attention of Congress to the adoption of the legal provisions therein suggested, or such other measures as may appear more expedient, for increasing the public security against similar defalcations hereafter. M. VAN BUREN. *Transmitting communications, papers, documents, etc., elucidating the origin and objects of the Smithsonian bequest and the origin, progress, and consummation of the process by which that bequest was recovered, etc. To the Senate of the United States: WASHINGTON, December 14, 1838. With the accompanying communication of the Secretary of War I transmit, for the consideration and constitutional action of the Senate. a treaty concluded with the Miami tribe of Indians on the 6th ultimo. Your attention is invited to that section which reserves a tract of land for the use of certain Indians, and to other reservations contained in the treaty. All such reservations are objectionable, but for the reasons. given by the Secretary of War I submit to your consideration whether the circumstances attending this negotiation, and the great importance of removing the Miamies from the State of Indiana, will warrant a departure in this instance from the salutary rule of excluding all reservations from Indian treaties. M. VAN BUREN. WAR DEPARTMENT, December 14, 1838. The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. SIR: I have the honor to lay before you, for submission to the Senate for its action if approved by you, a treaty with the Miami tribe of Indians concluded on the 6th ultimo. In doing so I beg to call your attention to that section which reserves from the cession made by the Miamies a tract of land supposed to contain 10 square miles, and to other reservations according to a schedule appended to the treaty. The commissioner who negotiated this treaty is of opinion that it could not have been concluded if he had not so far departed from his instructions as to admit these reservations. And it is to be feared that if the rules adopted by the Department in this particular be insisted upon on this occasion it will very much increase the difficulty, if it does not render it impracticable to acquire this land and remove these Indians— objects of so much importance to the United States and especially to the State of Indiana. Very respectfully, your most obedient servant, J. R. POINSETT. WASHINGTON, December 18, 1838. To the House of Representatives of the United States: I transmit the accompanying documents, marked from 1 to 5,* in reply to a resolution of yesterday's date, calling for copies of correspondence between the Executive of the General Government and the governor of Pennsylvania in relation to "a call of the latter for an armed force of United States troops since the present session of Congress," and requiring information "whether any officer of the United States instigated or participated" in the riotous proceedings referred to in the resolu tion, and "what measures, if any, the President has taken to investigate and punish the said acts, and whether any such officer still remains in the service of the United States." M. VAN BUREN. *Relating to the "Buckshot war." To the House of Representatives: WASHINGTON, December 20, 1838. I have the honor to transmit herewith additional letters and documents* embraced in the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 17th instant. M. VAN BUREN. To the House of Representatives: WASHINGTON, December 20, 1838. An important difference of opinion having arisen concerning the construction of an act of Congress making a grant of land to the State of Indiana,† and in which she feels a deep interest, I deem it proper to submit all the material facts to your consideration, with a view to procure such additional legislation as the facts of the case may appear to render proper. The report of the Secretary of the Treasury and the documents annexed from the General Land Office will disclose all the circumstances deemed material in relation to the subject, and are herewith presented. M. VAN BUREN. WASHINGTON, December 26, 1838. To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States: I transmit for your consideration the inclosed communication and accompanying documents from the Secretary of War, relative to the present state of the Pea Patch Island, in the Delaware River, and of the operations going on there for the erection of defenses for that important channel of commerce. It will be seen from these documents that a complete stop has been put to those operations in consequence of the island having been taken possession of by the individual claimant under the decision, in his favor, of the United States district court for the district of New Jersey, and that unless early measures are taken to bring the island within the jurisdiction of the Government great loss and injury will result to the future operations for carrying on the works. The importance of the subject would seem to render it worthy of the early attention of Congress. To the Senate: M. VAN BUREN. WASHINGTON, December, 1838. I transmit a letter from the Secretary of War, accompanied by a communication from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, on the subject of granting to the Chickasaw Indians subsistence for the further term of Relating to the "Buckshot war." + In aid of the construction of the Wabash and Erie Canal, |