Although the President can not believe that the term was employed in this injurious sense, yet the bare possibility of a construction being put upon it which it would be incumbent on him to repel with indignation obliges him to ask for the necessary explanation.

I have the honor to be, etc.,

EDWARD LIVINGSTON.

Mr. Livingston to Mr. Forsyth.

[Extract.]

WASHINGTON, June 29, 1835.

...  Having received my passports, I left Paris on the 29th of April.  At the time of my departure the note, of which a copy has been transmitted to you, asking an explanation of the terms used in M. Serurier’s communication to the Department, remained unanswered, but I have reason to believe that the answer when given will be satisfactory.

WASHINGTON, January 20, 1836.

Hon. JAMES K. POLK,

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

SIR:  I herewith transmit to the House of Representatives a report from the Director of the Mint, exhibiting the operations of that institution during the year 1835.

The report contains also some very useful suggestions as to certain changes in the laws connected with our coinage and with that establishment, which are recommended to your early and careful attention.

Besides some remarks in it on the progress made in the erection of branch mints and procuring machinery therefor, I inclose a report from the Secretary of the Treasury, submitting more detailed statements as to the new buildings from each of the agents appointed to superintend their erection.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, February 8, 1836.

To the Senate and House of Representatives: 

The Government of Great Britain has offered its mediation for the adjustment of the dispute between the United States and France.  Carefully guarding that point in the controversy which, as it involves our honor and independence, admits of no compromise, I have cheerfully accepted the offer.  It will be obviously improper to resort even to the mildest measures of a compulsory character until it is ascertained whether France has declined or accepted the mediation.  I therefore recommend a suspension of all proceedings on that part of my special message of the 15th of January last which proposes a partial nonintercourse with France.  While we can not too highly appreciate the elevated and disinterested motives of the offer of Great Britain, and have a just reliance upon the great influence of that power to restore the relations of ancient friendship between the United States and France, and know, too, that our own pacific policy will be strictly adhered to until the national honor compels us to depart from it, we should be insensible to the exposed condition of our country and forget the lessons of experience if we did not efficiently and sedulously prepare for an adverse result.  The peace of a nation does