r insult the
Government of France is as unfounded as the attempt to extort from the
fears of that nation what her sense of justice may deny would be vain
and ridiculous. But the Constitution of the United States imposes on
the President the duty of laying before Congress the condition of the
country in its foreign and domestic relations, and of recommending such
measures as may in his opinion be required by its interests. From the
performance of this duty he can not be deterred by the fear of wounding
the sensibilities of the people or government of whom it may become
necessary to speak; and the American people are incapable of submitting
to an interference by any government on earth, however powerful, with
the free performance of the domestic duties which the Constitution has
imposed on their public functionaries. The discussions which intervene
between the several departments of our Government belong to ourselves,
and for anything said in them our public servants are only responsible
to their own constituents and to each other. If in the course of their
consultations facts are erroneously stated or unjust deductions are
made, they require no other inducement to correct them, however informed
of their error, than their love of justice and what is due to their own
character; but they can never submit to be interrogated upon the subject
as a matter of right by a foreign power. When our discussions terminate
in acts, our responsibility to foreign powers commences, not as
individuals, but as a nation. The principle which calls in question
the President for the language of his message would equally justify a
foreign power in demanding explanation of the language used in the
report of a committee or by a member in debate.

This is not the first time that the Government of France has taken
exception to the messages of American Presidents. President Washington
and the first President Adams in the performance of their duties to the
American people fell under the animadversions of the French Directory.
The objection taken by the ministry of Charles X, and removed by the
explanations made by our minister upon the spot, has already been
adverted to. When it was understood that the ministry of the present
King took exception to my message of last year, putting a construction
upon it which was disavowed on its face, our late minister at Paris,
in answer to the note which first announced a dissatisfaction with
the language used in th