In the present state of our affairs with Great Britain the course above pointed out is the more justifiable and proper.

I have the honor, etc.,

JAMES MONROE.

JULY 6, 1812.

To the Senate of the United States: 

I transmit to the Senate copies and extracts of documents in the archives of the Department of State falling within the purview of their resolution of the 4th instant, on the subject of British impressments from American vessels.  The information, though voluminous, might have been enlarged with more time for research and preparation.  In some instances it might at the same time have been abridged but for the difficulty of separating the matter extraneous to the immediate object of the resolution.

JAMES MADISON.

VETO MESSAGE.

APRIL 3, 1812.

To the House of Representatives of the United States: 

Having examined and considered the bill entitled “An act providing for the trial of causes pending in the respective district courts of the United States, in case of the absence or disability of the judges thereof,” which bill was presented to me on the 25th of March past, I now return the same to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections: 

Because the additional services imposed by the bill on the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States are to be performed by them rather in the quality of other judges of other courts, namely, judges of the district courts, than in the quality of justices of the Supreme Court.  They are to hold the said district courts, and to do and perform all acts relating to the said courts which are by law required of the district judges.  The bill therefore virtually appoints, for the time, the justices of the Supreme Court to other distinct offices to which, if compatible with their original offices, they ought to be appointed by another than the legislative authority, in pursuance of legislative provisions authorizing the appointments.

Because the appeal allowed by law for the decision of the district courts to the circuit courts, whilst it corroborates the construction which regards a judge of one court as clothed with a new office, by being constituted a judge of the other, submits for correction erroneous judgments, not to superior or other judges, but to the erring individual himself, acting as sole judge in the appellate court.

Because the additional services to be required may, by distances of place and by the casualties contemplated by the bill, become disproportionate to the strength and health of the justices who are to perform them, the additional services being, moreover, entitled to no additional compensation, nor the additional expenses incurred to reimbursement.  In this view the bill appears to be contrary to equity, as well as a precedent for modifications and extensions of judicial services encroaching on the constitutional tenure of judicial offices.