Throughout the year
since our last meeting, the country has been eminently prosperous in all its
material interests. The general health has been excellent, our harvests have
been abundant, and plenty smiles throughout the land. Our commerce and
manufactures have been prosecuted with energy and industry, and have yielded
fair and ample returns. In short, no nation in the tide of time has ever
presented a spectacle of greater material prosperity than we have done, until
within a very recent period.
Why is it, then,
that discontent now so extensively prevails, and the union of the States, which
is the source of all these blessings is threatened with destruction?
The long continued
and intemperate interference of the northern people with the question of slavery
in the southern States has at length produced its natural effects. The
different sections of the Union are now arrayed against each other, and the
time has arrived, so much dreaded by the Father of his Country, when hostile
geographical parties have been formed.
I have long
foreseen, and often forewarned my countrymen of the now impending danger. This
does not proceed solely from the claim on the part of Congress or the
territorial legislatures to exclude slavery from the Territories, nor from the
efforts of different States to defeat the execution of the fugitive slave law.
All or any of these evils might have been endured by the South, without danger
to the Union, (as others have been,) in the hope that time and reflection might
apply the remedy. The immediate peril arises, not so much from these causes, as
from the fact, that the incessant and violent agitation of the slavery question
throughout the North for the last quarter of a century has at length produced
its malign influence on the slaves, and inspired them with vague notions of
freedom. Hence a sense of security no longer exists around the family altar.
This feeling of peace at home has given place to apprehensions of servile
insurrections. Many a matron throughout the South retires at night in dread of
what may befall herself and her children before the morning. Should this
apprehension of domestic danger, whether real or imaginary extend, and
intensify itself, until it shall pervade the masses of the southern people,
then disunion will become inevitable. Self-preservation is the first law of
nature, and has been implanted in the heart of man by his Creator, for the
wisest purpose; and no political union, however fraught with blessings and
benefits in all other respects, can long continue, if the necessary consequence
be to render the homes and the firesides of nearly half the parties to it
habitually and hopelessly insecure. Sooner or later the bonds of such a Union
must be severed. It is my conviction that this fatal period has not yet
arrived; and my prayer to God is, that he would preserve the Constitution and
the Union throughout all generations.
But let us take
warning in time, and remove the cause of danger. It cannot be denied that for
five and twenty years the agitation at the North against slavery has been
incessant. In 1835, pictorial handbills and inflammatory appeals were
circulated extensively throughout the South of a character to excite the
passions of the slaves, and, in the language of General Jackson, "to
stimulate them to insurrection and produce all the horrors of a servile
war." This agitation has ever since been continued by the public press, by
the proceedings of State and county conventions, and by abolition sermons and
lectures. The time of Congress has been occupied in violent speeches on this
never-ending subject; and appeals, in pamphlet and other forms, indorsed by
distinguished names, have been sent forth from this central point and spread
broadcast over the Union.
How easy would it be
for the American people to settle the slavery question forever, and to restore
peace and harmony to this distracted country! They, and they alone, can do it.
All that is necessary to accomplish the object, and all for which the slave
States have ever contended, is to be let alone and permitted to manage their
domestic institutions in their own way. As sovereign States, they and they
alone are responsible before God and the world for the slavery existing among
them. For this the people of the North are not more responsible, and have no
more right to interfere, than with similar institutions in Russia or in Brazil.
Upon their good
sense and patriotic forbearance, I confess, I still greatly rely. Without their
aid it is beyond the power of any President, no matter what may be his own
political proclivities, to restore peace and harmony among the States. Wisely
limited and restrained as is his power under our Constitution and laws, he
alone can accomplish but little for good or for evil on such a momentous
question.
And this brings me
to observe, that the election of any one of our fellow-citizens to the office
of President does not of itself afford just cause for dissolving the Union.
This is more especially true if his election has been effected by a mere
plurality and not a majority of the people, and has resulted from transient and
temporary causes, which may probably never again occur. In order to justify a
resort to revolutionary resistance the federal government must be guilty of
"a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise" of powers not
granted by the Constitution. The late presidential election, however, has been
held in strict conformity with its express provisions. How, then, can the
result justify a revolution to destroy this very Constitution? Season, justice,
a regard for the Constitution, all require that we shall wait for some overt
and dangerous act on the part of the President elect, before resorting to such
a remedy. It is said, however, that the antecedents of the President elect have
been sufficient to justify the fears of the South that he will attempt to
invade their constitutional rights. But are such apprehensions of contingent
danger in the future sufficient to justify the immediate destruction of the
noblest system of government ever devised by mortals? From the very nature of
his office, and its high responsibilities, he must necessarily be conservative.
The stern duty of administering the vast and complicated concerns of this
government affords in itself a guarantee that he 'will not attempt any
violation of a clear constitutional right.
After all, he is no
more than the chief executive officer of the government. His province is not to
make but to execute the laws; and it is a remarkable fact in our history that,
notwithstanding the repeated efforts of the anti-slavery party, no single act
has ever passed Congress, unless we may possibly except the Missouri
compromise, impairing in the slightest degree the rights of the South to their
property in slaves. And it may also be observed, judging from present
indications, that no probability exists of the passage of such an act by a
majority of both houses, either in the present or the next Congress. Surely,
under these circumstances we ought to be restrained from present action by the
precept of Him who spake as man never spoke that "sufficient unto the day
is the evil thereof." The day of evil may never come unless we shall
rashly bring it upon ourselves.
It is alleged as one
cause for immediate secession, that the southern States are denied equal rights
with the other States in the common Territories. But by what authority are
these denied? Not by Congress, which has never passed, and I believe never will
pass, any act to exclude slavery from these Territories. And certainly not by
the Supreme Court, which has solemnly decided that slaves are property, and
like all other property their owners have a right to take them into the common
Territories and hold them there under the protection of the Constitution.
So far then as
Congress is concerned the objection is not to anything they have already done,
but to what they may do hereafter. It will surely be admitted that this
apprehension of future danger is no good reason for an immediate dissolution of
the Union. It is true that the territorial legislature of Kansas on the 23d February,
1860, passed in great haste an act over the veto of the governor, declaring
that slavery "is and shall be forever prohibited in this Territory."
Such an act, however, plainly violating the rights of property secured by the
Constitution, will surely be declared void by the judiciary, whenever it shall
be presented in a legal form.
Only three days
after my inauguration the Supreme Court of the United States solemnly adjudged
that this power did not exist in a territorial legislature. Yet such has been
the factious temper of the times that the correctness of this decision has been
extensively impugned before the people, and the question has given rise to
angry political conflicts throughout the country. Those who have appealed from
this judgment of our highest constitutional tribunal to popular assemblies,
would, if they could, invest a territorial legislature with power to annul the
sacred rights of property. This power Congress is expressly forbidden by the
federal Constitution to exercise. Every State legislature in the Union is
forbidden by its own constitution to exercise it. It cannot be exercised in any
State except by the people in their highest sovereign capacity when framing or
amending their State constitution. In like manner it can only be exercised by
the people of a territory, represented in a convention of delegates, for the
purpose of framing a constitution preparatory to admission as a State into the
Union. Then and not until then, are they invested with power to decide the
question whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits. This is
an act of sovereign authority and not of subordinate territorial legislation.
Were it otherwise, then indeed would the equality of the States in the
Territories be destroyed and the rights of property in slaves would depend not
upon the guarantees of the Constitution, but upon the shifting majorities of an
irresponsible territorial legislature. Such a doctrine, from its intrinsic
unsoundness, cannot long influence any considerable portion of our people, much
less can it afford a good reason for a dissolution of the Union.
The most palpable
violations of constitutional duty which have yet been committed consist in the
acts of different State legislatures to defeat the execution of the fugitive slave
law. It ought to be remembered, however, that for these acts neither Congress
nor any President can justly be held responsible. Having been passed in
violation of the federal Constitution, they are therefore null and void. All
the courts, both State and national, before whom the question has arisen, have,
from the beginning, declared the fugitive slave law to be constitutional. The
single exception is that of a State court in Wisconsin; and this has not only
been reversed by the proper appellate tribunal, but has met with such universal
reprobation, that there can be no danger from it as a precedent. The validity
of this law has been established over and over again by the Supreme Court of
the United States with perfect unanimity. It is founded upon an express
provision of the Constitution, requiring that fugitive slaves who escape from
service in one State to another shall be "delivered up" to their
masters. Without this provision it is a well known historical fact that the
Constitution itself could never have been adopted by the convention. In one
form or other under the acts of 1793 and 1850, both being substantially the
same, the fugitive slave law has been the law of the land from the days of
Washington until the present moment. Here, then, a clear case is presented, in
which it will be the duty of the next .President, as it has been my own, to act
with vigor in executing this supreme law against the conflicting enactments of
State legislatures. Should he fail in the performance of this high duty, he will
then have manifested a disregard of the Constitution and laws, to the great
injury of the people of nearly one half of the States of the Union. But are we
to presume in advance that he will thus violate his duty? This would be at war
with every principle of justice and of Christian charity. Let us wait for the
overt act. The fugitive slave law has been carried into execution in every
contested case since the commencement of the present administration; though
often, it is to be regretted, with great loss and inconvenience to the master,
and with considerable expense to the government. Let us trust that the State
legislatures will repeal their unconstitutional and obnoxious enactments.
Unless this shall be done without unnecessary delay, it is impossible for any
human power to save the Union.
The southern States,
standing on the basis of the Constitution, have a right to demand this act of
justice from the States of the North. Should it be refused, then the
Constitution, to which all the States are parties, will have been willfully
violated by one portion of them in a provision essential to the domestic
security and happiness of the remainder. In that event, the injured States,
after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress,
would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the government of the Union.
I have purposely
confined my remarks to revolutionary resistance, because it has been claimed
within the last few years that any State, whenever this shall be its sovereign
will and pleasure, may secede from the Union in accordance with the
Constitution, and without any violation of the constitutional rights of the
other members of the Confederacy. That as each became parties to the Union by
the vote of its own people assembled in convention, so any one of them may
retire from the Union in a similar manner by the vote of such a convention.
In order to justify
secession as a constitutional remedy it must be on the principle that the
federal government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved
at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the
Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first
adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our
thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and
hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility
whenever any sudden excitement might impell them to such a course. By this
process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which
cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.
Such a principle is
wholly inconsistent with the history as well as the character of the federal
Constitution. After it was framed with the greatest deliberation and care it
was submitted to conventions of the people of the several States for
ratification. Its provisions were discussed at length in these bodies, composed
of the-first men of the country. Its opponents contended that it conferred
powers upon the federal government dangerous to the rights of the States, whilst
its advocates maintained that, under a fair construction of the instrument,
there was no foundation for such apprehensions. In that mighty struggle between
the first intellects of this or any other country it never occurred to any
individual, either among its opponents or advocates, to assert or even to
intimate that their efforts were all vain labor, because the moment that any
State felt herself aggrieved she might secede from the Union. What a crushing
argument would this have proved against those who dreaded that the rights of
the States would be endangered by the Constitution. The truth is, that it was
not until many years after the origin of the federal government that such a
proposition was first advanced. It was then met and refuted by the conclusive
arguments of General Jackson, who, in his message of the 16th January, 1833,
transmitting the nullifying ordinance of South Carolina to Congress, employs
the following language: "The right of the people of a single State to
absolve themselves at will and without the consent of the other States from
their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberty and happiness of the
millions composing this Union, cannot be acknowledged. Such authority is
believed to be utterly repugnant both to the principles upon which the general
government is constituted, and to the objects which it was expressly formed to
attain."
It is not pretended
that any clause in the Constitution gives countenance to such a theory. It is
altogether founded upon inference not from any language contained in the
instrument itself, but from the sovereign character of the several States by
which it was ratified. But is it beyond the power of a State, like an
individual, to yield a portion of its sovereign rights to secure the remainder?
In the language of Mr. Madison, who has been called the father of the
Constitution, "It was formed by the States—that is, by the people in each
of the States acting in their highest sovereign capacity, and formed
consequently by the same authority which formed the State constitutions."
"Nor is the government of the United States, created by the Constitution,
less a government, in the strict sense of the term, within the sphere of its
powers, than the governments created by the constitutions of the States are
within their several spheres. It is, like them, organized into legislative,
executive, and judiciary departments. It operates, like them, directly on
persons and things; and, like them, it has at command a physical force for
executing the powers committed to it."
It was intended to
be perpetual, and not to be annulled at the pleasure of any one of the
contracting parties. The old articles of confederation were entitled
"Articles of confederation and perpetual union between the States;"
and by the thirteenth article it is expressly declared that "the articles
of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the
union shall be perpetual." The preamble to the Constitution of the United
States having express reference to the articles of confederation, recites that
it was established "in order to form a more perfect union." And yet
it is contended that this ''more perfect union'' does not include the essential
attribute of perpetuity.
But that the union
was designed to be perpetual, appears conclusively from the nature and extent
of the powers conferred by the Constitution on the federal government. These
powers embrace the very highest attributes of national sovereignty. They place
both the sword and the purse under its control. Congress has power to make war
and to make peace; to raise and support armies and navies, and to conclude
treaties with foreign governments. It is invested with the power to coin money,
and to regulate the value thereof, and to regulate commerce with foreign
nations and among the several States. It is not necessary to enumerate the
other high powers which have been conferred upon the federal government. In
order to carry the enumerated powers into effect, Congress possesses the
exclusive right to lay and collect duties on imports, and, in common with the
States, to lay and collect all other taxes.
But the Constitution
has not only conferred these high powers upon Congress, but it has adopted
effectual means to restrain the States from interfering with their exercise.
For that purpose it has in strong prohibitory language expressly declared that
"no State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant
letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything
but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of
attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of
contracts." Moreover, "without the consent of Congress no State shall
lay any imposts or duties on any imports or exports, except what may be absolutely
necessary for executing its inspection laws," and if they exceed this
amount, the excess shall belong to the United States. And "no State shall,
without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships
of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another
State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded or in
such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."
In order still
further to secure the uninterrupted exercise of these high powers against State
interposition, it is provided "that this Constitution and the laws of the
United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made
or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything
in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
The solemn sanction
of religion has been superadded to the obligations of official duty, and all
senators and representatives of the United States, all members of State
legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, "both of the United
States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to
support this Constitution."
In order to carry
into effect these powers, the Constitution has established a perfect government
in all its forms, legislative, executive, and judicial: and this government to
the extent of its powers acts directly upon the individual citizens of every
State, and executes its own decrees by the agency of its own officers. In this
respect it differs entirely from the government under the old confederation,
which was confined to making requisitions on the States in their sovereign
character. This left it in the discretion of each whether to obey or to refuse,
and they often declined to comply with such requisitions. It thus became
necessary for the purpose of removing this barrier, and, "in order to form
a more perfect union," to establish a government which could act directly
upon the people and execute its own laws without the intermediate agency of the
States. This has been accomplished by the Constitution of the United States. In
short, the government created by the Constitution, and deriving its authority
from the sovereign people of each of the several States, has precisely the same
right to exercise its power over the people of all these States in the
enumerated cases, that each one of them possesses over subjects not delegated
to the United States, but "reserved to the States respectively or to the
people."
To the extent of the
delegated powers the Constitution of the United States is as much a part of the
constitution of each State, and is as binding upon its people, as though it had
been textually inserted therein.
This government
therefore is a great and powerful government, invested with all the attributes
of sovereignty over the special subjects to which its authority extends. Its
framers never intended to implant in its bosom the seeds of its own destruction,
nor were they at its creation guilty of the absurdity of providing for its own
dissolution. It was not intended by its framers to be the baseless fabric of a
vision, which, at the touch of the enchanter, would vanish into thin air, but a
substantial and mighty fabric, capable of resisting the slow decay of time, and
of defying the storms of ages. Indeed, well may the jealous patriots of that
day have indulged fears that a government of such nigh powers might violate the
reserved rights of the States, and wisely did they adopt the rule of a strict
construction of these powers to prevent the danger. But they did not fear, nor
had they any reason to imagine that the Constitution would ever be so
interpreted as to enable any State by her own act, and without the consent of
her sister States, to discharge her people from all or any of their federal
obligations.
It may be asked,
then, are the people of the States without redress against the tyranny and
oppression of the federal government? By no means. The right of resistance on
the part of the governed against the oppression of their governments cannot be
denied. It exists independently of all constitutions, and has been exercised at
all periods of the world's history. Under it, old governments have been destroyed
and new ones have taken their place. It is embodied in strong and express
language in our own Declaration of Independence. But the distinction must ever
be observed that this is revolution against an established government, and not
a voluntary secession from it by virtue of an inherent constitutional right. In
short, let us look the danger fairly in the face; secession is neither more nor
less than revolution. It may or it may not be a justifiable revolution; but
still it is revolution.
What, in the meantime,
is the responsibility and true position of the Executive? He is bound by solemn
oath, before God and the country, "to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed," and from this obligation he cannot be absolved by
any human power. But what if the performance of this duty, in whole or in part,
has been rendered impracticable by events over which he could have exercised no
control? Such, at the present moment, is the case throughout the State of South
Carolina, so far as the laws of the United States to secure the administration
of justice by means of the federal judiciary are concerned. All the federal
officers within its limits, through whose agency alone these laws can be
carried into execution, have already resigned. We no longer have a district
judge, a district attorney, or a marshal in South Carolina. In fact, the whole
machinery of the federal government necessary for the distribution of remedial
justice among the people has been demolished, and it would be difficult, if not
impossible, to replace it.
The only acts of
Congress on the statute book bearing upon this subject are those of the 28th
February, 1795, and 3d March, 1807. These authorize the President, after he
shall have ascertained that the marshal, with his posse comitatus, is unable to
execute civil or criminal process in any particular case, to call forth the
militia and employ the army and navy to aid him in performing this service,
having first by proclamation commanded the insurgents "to disperse and
retire peaceably to their respective abodes within a limited time." This
duty cannot by possibility be performed in a State where no judicial authority
exists to issue process, and where there is no marshal to execute it, and
where, even if there were such an officer, the entire population would
constitute one solid combination to resist him.
The bare enumeration
of these provisions proves how inadequate they are without further legislation
to overcome a united opposition in a single State, not to speak of other States
who may place themselves in a similar attitude. Congress alone has power to decide
whether the present laws can or cannot be amended so as to carry out more
effectually the objects of the Constitution.
The same insuperable
obstacles do not lie in the way of executing the laws for the collection of the
customs. The revenue still continues to be collected, as heretofore, at the
custom-house in Charleston, and should the collector unfortunately resign a
successor may be appointed to perform this duty.
Then, in regard to
the property of the United States in South Carolina. This has been purchased
for a fair equivalent, "by the consent of the legislature of the
State," "for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals,"
&c, and over these the authority "to exercise exclusive
legislation," has been expressly granted by the Constitution to Congress.
It is not believed that any attempt will be made to expel the United States
from this property by force; but if in this I should prove to be mistaken, the
officer in command of the forts has received orders to act strictly on the
defensive. In such a contingency the responsibility for consequences would
rightfully rest upon the heads of the assailants.
Apart from the
execution of the laws, so far as this may be practicable, the Executive has no
authority to decide what shall be the relations between the federal government
and South Carolina. He has been invested with no such discretion. He possesses
no power to change the relations heretofore existing between them, much less to
acknowledge the independence of that State. This would be to invest a mere
executive officer with the power of recognizing the dissolution of the
Confederacy among our thirty-three sovereign States. It bears no resemblance to
the recognition of a foreign de facto government, involving no such
responsibility. Any attempt "to do this would, on his part, be a naked act
of usurpation. It is, therefore, my duty to submit to Congress the whole
question in all its bearings. The course of events is so rapidly hastening
forward that the emergency may soon arise when you may be called upon to decide
the momentous question whether you possess the power, by force of arms, to
compel a State to remain in the Union. I should feel myself recreant to my duty
were I not to express an opinion on this important subject.
The question fairly
stated is: Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a
State into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn
from the Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the
principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to
make war against a State.
After much serious
reflection, I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been
delegated to Congress or to any other department of the federal government. It
is manifest, upon an inspection of the Constitution, that this is not among the
specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress; and it is equally apparent
that its exercise is not "necessary and proper for carrying into
execution" any one of these powers. So far from this power having been
delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the convention which framed
the Constitution.
It appears from the
proceedings of that body that on the 31st May, 1787, the clause
"authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole against a delinquent
State" came up for consideration. Mr. Madison opposed it in a brief, but
powerful speech, from which I shall extract but a single sentence. He observed:
''The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war
than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party
attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be
bound." Upon his motion the clause was unanimously postponed, and was
never, I believe, again presented. Soon afterwards, on the 8th June, 1787, when
incidentally adverting to the subject, he said: "Any government for the
United States, formed on the supposed practicability of using force against the
unconstitutional proceedings of the States, would prove as visionary and
fallacious as the government of Congress," evidently meaning the then
existing Congress of the old confederation.
Without descending
to particulars, it may be safely asserted that the power to make war against a
State is at variance with the whole spirit and intent of the Constitution.
Suppose such a war should result in the conquest of a State: how are we to
govern it afterwards? Shall we hold it as a province and govern it by despotic
power? In the nature of things, we could not, by physical force, control the
will of the people and compel them to elect senators and representatives to
Congress, and to perform all the other duties depending upon their own volition
and required from the free citizens of a free State as a constituent member of the
Confederacy.
But, if we possessed
this power, would it be wise to exercise it under existing circumstances? The
object would doubtless be to preserve the Union. War would not only present the
most effectual means of destroying it, but would banish all hope of its
peaceable reconstruction. Besides, in the fraternal conflict a vast amount of
blood and treasure would be expended, rendering future reconciliation between
the States impossible. In the meantime, who can foretell what would be the
sufferings and privations of the people during its existence?
The fact is, that
our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of
its citizens shed in civil war. If it cannot live in the affections of the
people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it
by conciliation; but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by
force.
But may I be
permitted solemnly to invoke my countrymen to pause and deliberate, before they
determine to destroy this, the grandest temple which has ever been dedicated to
human freedom since the world began. It has been consecrated by the blood of
our fathers, by the glories of the past, and by the hopes of the future. The
Union has already made us the most prosperous, and ere long will, if preserved,
render us the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. In every foreign
region of the globe the title of American citizen is held in the highest
respect, and when pronounced in a foreign land it causes the hearts of our countrymen
to swell with honest pride. Surely, when we reach the brink of the yawning
abyss we shall recoil with horror from the last fatal plunge.
By such a dread
catastrophe, the hopes of the friends of freedom throughout the world would be
destroyed, and a long night of leaden despotism would enshroud the nations. Our
example for more than eighty years would not only be lost, but it would be
quoted as a conclusive proof that man is unfit for self-government.
It is not every
wrong—nay, it is not every grievous wrong—which can justify a resort to such a
fearful alternative. This ought to be the last desperate remedy of a despairing
people, after every other constitutional means of conciliation had been
exhausted. We should reflect that, under this free government, there is an
incessant ebb and flow in public opinion. The slavery question, like everything
human, will have its day. I firmly believe that it has reached and passed the
culminating point. But if, in the midst of the existing excitement, the Union shall
perish, the evil may then become irreparable.
Congress can
contribute much to avert it, by proposing and recommending to the legislatures
of the several States the remedy for existing evils which the Constitution has
itself provided for its own reservation. This has been tried at different
critical periods of our history, and always with eminent success. It is to be
found in the fifth article, providing for its own amendment. Under this article
amendments have been proposed by two thirds of both houses of Congress, and
have been "ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several
States," and have consequently become parts of the Constitution. To this
process the country is indebted for the clause prohibiting Congress from
passing any law respecting an establishment of religion, or abridging the
freedom of speech or of the press, or of the right of petition. To this we are,
also, indebted for the Bill of Rights, which secures the people against any
abuse of power by the federal government. Such were the apprehensions justly
entertained by the friends of State rights at that period as to have rendered
it extremely doubtful whether the Constitution could have long survived without
those amendments.
Again, the
Constitution was amended by the same process, after the election of President
Jefferson by the House of Representatives, in February, 1803. This amendment
was rendered necessary to prevent a recurrence of the dangers, which had
seriously threatened the existence of the government during the pendency of
that election. The article for its own amendment was intended to secure the
amicable adjustment of conflicting constitutional questions like the present,
which might arise between the governments of the States and that of the United
States. This appears from contemporaneous history. In this connection, I shall
merely call attention to a few sentences in Mr. Madison's justly celebrated
report, in 1799, to the legislature of Virginia. In this, he ably and
conclusively defended the resolutions of the preceding legislature, against the
strictures of several other State legislatures. These were mainly founded upon
the protest of the Virginia legislature against the "alien and sedition
acts," as "palpable and alarming infractions of the
Constitution." In pointing out the peaceful and constitutional
remedies—and he referred to none other—to which the States were authorized to
resort on such occasions, he concludes by saying, "that the legislatures
of the States might have made a direct representation to Congress, with a view
to obtain a rescinding of the two offensive acts, or they might have
represented to their respective senators in Congress, their wish that two
thirds thereof would propose an explanatory amendment to the Constitution, or
two thirds of themselves, if such had been their option, might by an
application to Congress, have obtained a convention for the same object."
This is the very course which I earnestly recommend, in order to obtain an
"explanatory amendment" of the Constitution on the subject of
slavery. This might originate with Congress or the State legislatures, as may
be deemed most advisable to attain the object.
The explanatory
amendment might be confined to the final settlement of the true construction of
the Constitution on three special points:
1. An express
recognition of the right of property in slaves in the States where it now
exists or may hereafter exist.
2. The duty of
protecting this right in all the common Territories throughout their
territorial existence, and until they shall be admitted as States into the
Union, with or without slavery, as their constitutions may prescribe.
3. A like
recognition of the right of the master to have his slave, who has escaped from
one State to another restored and ''delivered up" to him, and of the
validity of the fugitive slave law enacted for this purpose, together with a
declaration that all State laws impairing or defeating this right, are
violations of the Constitution, and are consequently null and void. It may be
objected that this construction of the Constitution has already been settled by
the Supreme Court of the United States, and what more ought to be required? The
answer is, that a very large proportion of the people of the United States
still contest the correctness of this decision, and never will cease from
agitation and admit its binding force until clearly established by the people
of the several States in their sovereign character. Such an explanatory
amendment, would, it is believed, forever terminate the existing dissensions,
and restore peace and harmony among the States.
It ought not to be
doubted that such an appeal to the arbitrament established by the Constitution
itself would be received with favor by all the States of the Confederacy. In
any event, it ought to be tried in a spirit of conciliation before any of these
States shall separate themselves from the Union.
When I entered upon
the duties of the presidential office the aspect neither of our foreign nor
domestic affairs was at all satisfactory. We were involved in dangerous
complications with several nations, and two of our Territories were in a state
of revolution against the government. A restoration of the African slave trade
had numerous and powerful advocates. Unlawful military expeditions were
countenanced by many of our citizens, and were suffered, in defiance of the
efforts of the government, to escape from our shores for the purpose of making
war upon the unoffending people of neighboring republics with whom we were at
peace. In addition to these and other difficulties, we experienced a revulsion
in monetary affairs, soon after my advent to power, of unexampled severity, and
of ruinous consequences to all the great interests of the country. When we take
a retrospect of what was then our condition, and contrast this with its
material prosperity at the time of the late presidential election, we have
abundant reason to return our grateful thanks to that merciful Providence which
has never forsaken us as a nation in all our past trials.
Our relations with
Great Britain are of the most friendly character. Since the commencement of my
administration the two dangerous questions arising from the Clayton and Bulwer
treaty, and from the right of search claimed by the British government, have
been amicably and honorably adjusted.
The discordant
constructions of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty between the two governments,
which at different periods of the discussion bore a threatening aspect, have
resulted in a final settlement entirely satisfactory to this government. In my
last annual message I informed Congress that the British government had not
then "completed treaty arrangements with the Republics of Honduras and
Nicaragua in pursuance of the understanding between the two governments. It is,
nevertheless, confidently expected that this good work will ere long be
accomplished." This confident expectation has since been fulfilled. Her
Britannic Majesty concluded a treaty with Honduras on the 28th November, 1859,
and with Nicaragua on the 28th August, 1860, relinquishing the Mosquito
protectorate. Besides, by the former, the Bay Islands are recognized as a part
of the Republic of Honduras. It may be observed that the stipulations of these
treaties conform in every important particular to the amendments adopted by the
Senate of the United States to the treaty concluded at London on the 17th
October, 1856, between the two governments. It will be recollected that this
treaty was rejected by the British government, because of its objection to the
just and important amendment of the Senate to the article relating to Ruatan
and the other islands in the bay of Honduras.
It must be a source
of sincere satisfaction to all classes of our fellow citizens, and especially
to those engaged in foreign commerce, that the claim on the part of Great
Britain forcibly to visit and search American merchant vessels on the high seas
in time of peace, has been abandoned. This was, by far, the most dangerous
question to the peace of the two countries which has existed since the war of
1812. Whilst it remained open, they might at any moment have been precipitated
into a war. This was rendered manifest by the exasperated state of public
feeling throughout our entire country, produced by the forcible search of
American merchant vessels by British cruisers on the coast of Cuba, in the
spring of 1858. The American people hailed with general acclaim the orders of
the Secretary of the Navy to our naval force in the Gulf of Mexico "to
protect all vessels of the United States on the high seas from search or
detention by the vessels of war of any other nation." These orders might
have produced an immediate collision between the naval forces of the two
countries. This was most fortunately prevented by an appeal to the justice of
Great Britain, and to the law of nations as expounded by her own most eminent
jurists.
The only question of
any importance which still remains open, is the disputed title between the two
governments to the Island of San Juan, in the vicinity of Washington Territory.
As this question is still under negotiation, it is not deemed advisable at the
present moment to make any other allusion to the subject.
The recent visit of
the Prince of Wales, in a private character, to the people of this country, has
proved to be a most auspicious event. In its consequences, it cannot fail to
increase the kindred and kindly feelings which I trust may ever actuate the
government and people of both countries in their political and social
intercourse with each other.
With France, our
ancient and powerful ally, our relations continue to be of the most friendly
character. A decision has recently been made by a French judicial tribunal,
with the approbation of the Imperial government, which cannot fail to foster
the sentiments of mutual regard that have so long existed between the two
countries. Under the French law, no person can serve in the armies of France,
unless he be a French citizen. The law of France recognizing the natural right
of expatriation, it follows as a necessary consequence, that a Frenchman by the
fact of having become a citizen of the United States has changed his
allegiance, and has lost his native character. He cannot therefore be compelled
to serve in the French armies, in case he should return to his native country.
These principles were announced in 1852 by the French Minister of War, and in
two late cases have been confirmed by the French judiciary. In these, two
natives of France have been discharged from the French army, because they had
become American citizens. To employ the language of our present minister to
France, who has rendered good service on this occasion: "I do not think
our French naturalized fellow-citizens will hereafter experience much annoyance
on this subject." I venture to predict that the time is not far distant
when the other continental powers will adopt the same wise and just policy
which has done so much honor to the enlightened government of the Emperor. In
any event, our government is bound to protect the rights of our naturalized
citizens everywhere, to the same extent as though they had drawn their first
breath in this country. We can recognize no distinction between our native and
naturalized citizens.
Between the great
empire of Russia and the United States, the mutual friendship and regard which
has so long existed still continues to prevail, and if possible to increase.
Indeed our relations with that empire are all that we could desire. Our
relations with Spain are now of a more complicated though less dangerous
character than they have been for many years. Our citizens have long-held and
continue to hold numerous claims against the Spanish government. These had been
ably urged for a series of years by our successive diplomatic representatives
at Madrid, but without obtaining redress. The Spanish government finally agreed
to institute a joint commission for the adjustment of these claims, and on the
5th day of March, 1860, concluded a convention for this purpose with our
present minister at Madrid.
Under this
convention, what have been denominated the "Cuban claims," amounting
to $128,635.54, in which more than one hundred of our fellow-citizens are
interested, were recognized; and the Spanish government agreed to pay $100,000
of this amount "within three months following the exchange of
ratifications." The payment of the remaining $28,635 54 was to await the
decision of the commissioners for or against the "Amistad claim;" but
in any event the balance was to be paid to the claimants either by Spain or the
United States. These terms, I have every reason to know, are highly
satisfactory to the holders of the Cuban claims. Indeed, they have made a
formal offer, authorizing the State Department to settle these claims, and to
deduct the amount of the Amistad claim from the sums which they are entitled to
receive from Spain. This offer, of course, cannot be accepted. All other claims
of citizens of the United States against Spain, or of subjects of the Queen of
Spain against the United States, including the "Amistad claim," were
by this convention referred to a board of commissioners in the usual form.
Neither the validity of the Amistad claim, nor of any other claim against
either party, with the single exception of the Cuban claims, was recognized by
the convention. Indeed, the Spanish government did not insist that the validity
of the Amistad claim should be thus recognized, notwithstanding its payment had
been recommended to Congress by two of my predecessors, as well as by myself,
and an appropriation for that purpose had passed the Senate of the United
States.
They were content
that it should be submitted to the board for examination and decision like the
other claims. Both governments were bound respectively to pay the amounts
awarded to the several claimants "at such times and places as may be fixed
by and according to the tenor of said awards."
I transmitted this
convention to the Senate for their constitutional action on the 3d of May,
1860, and on the 27th of the succeeding June, they determined that they would
"not advise and consent" to its ratification.
These proceedings
place our relations with Spain in an awkward and embarrassing position. It is
more than probable that the final adjustment of these claims will devolve upon
my successor.
I reiterate the
recommendation contained in my annual message of December, 1858, and repeated
in that of December, 1859, in favor of the acquisition of Cuba from Spain by
fair purchase. I firmly believe that such an acquisition would contribute
essentially to the wellbeing and prosperity of both countries in all future time,
as well as prove the certain means of immediately abolishing the African slave
trade throughout the world. I would not repeat this recommendation upon the
present occasion if I believed that the transfer of Cuba to the United States,
upon conditions highly favorable to Spain, could justly tarnish the national
honor of the proud and ancient Spanish monarchy. Surely no person ever
attributed to the First Napoleon a disregard of the national honor of France
for transferring Louisiana to the United States for a fair equivalent, both in
money and commercial advantages.
With the Emperor of
Austria and the remaining continental powers of Europe, including that of the
Sultan, our relations continue to be of the most friendly character.
The friendly and
peaceful policy pursued by the government of the United States towards the
empire of China has produced the most satisfactory results. The treaty of
Tientsin of the 18th June, 1858, has been faithfully observed by the Chinese
authorities. The convention of the 8th November, 1858, supplementary to this
treaty for the adjustment and satisfaction of the claims of our citizens on
China, referred to in my last annual message, has been already carried into
effect, so far as this was practicable. Under this convention the sum of
500,000 taels, equal to about $700,000, was stipulated to be paid in
satisfaction of the claims of American citizens out of the one fifth of the
receipts for tonnage, import, and export duties on American vessels at the
ports of Canton, Shanghai, Fuchau; and it was "agreed that this amount
shall be in full liquidation of all claims of American citizens at the various
ports to this date.'' Debentures for this amount, to wit: 300,000 taels for
Canton, 100,000 for Shanghai, and 100,000 for Fuchau, were delivered, according
to the terms of the convention, by the respective Chinese collectors of the
customs of these ports to the agent selected by our minister to receive the
same. Since that time the claims of our citizens have been adjusted by the board
of commissioners appointed for that purpose under the act of March 3, 1859, and
their awards, which proved satisfactory to the claimants, have been approved by
our minister. In the aggregate they amount to the sum of $498,694.78. The
claimants have already received a large proportion of the sums awarded to them
out of the fund provided, and it is confidently expected that the remainder
will, ere long, be entirely paid. After the awards shall have been satisfied,
there will remain a surplus of more than $200,000 at the disposition of
Congress. As this will in equity belong to the Chinese government, would not
justice require its appropriation to some benevolent object in which the
Chinese may be specially interested?
Our minister to
China, in obedience to his instructions, has remained perfectly neutral in the
war between Great Britain and France and the Chinese empire, although, in
conjunction with the Russian minister, he was ever ready and willing, had the
opportunity offered, to employ his good offices in restoring peace between the
parties. It is but an act of simple justice, both to our present minister and
his predecessor, to state that they have proved fully equal to the delicate,
trying, and responsible positions in which they have on different occasions
been placed.
The ratifications of
the treaty with Japan, concluded at Yeddo on the 29th July, 1858, were
exchanged at Washington on the 22d May last, and the treaty itself was
proclaimed on the succeeding day. There is good reason to expect that, under
its protection and influence, our trade and intercourse with that distant and
interesting people will rapidly increase.
The ratifications of
the treaty were exchanged with unusual solemnity. For this purpose the Tycoon
had accredited three of his most distinguished subjects as envoys extraordinary
and ministers plenipotentiary, who were received and treated with marked
distinction and kindness, both by the government and people of the United
States. There is every reason to believe that they have returned to their
native land entirely satisfied with their visit, and inspired by the most
friendly feelings for our country. Let us ardently hope, in the language of the
treaty itself, that ''there shall henceforward be perpetual peace and
friendship between the United States of America and his Majesty the Tycoon of
Japan and his successors."
With the wise,
conservative, and liberal government of the empire of Brazil our relations
continue to be of the most amicable character.
The exchange of the
ratifications of the convention with the republic of New Granada, signed at
Washington on the 10th September, 1857, has been long delayed from accidental
causes, for which neither party is censurable. These ratifications were duly
exchanged in this city on the 5th of November last. Thus has a controversy been
amicably terminated, which had become so serious at the period of my
inauguration, as to require me, on the 17th April, 1857, to direct our minister
to demand his passports and return to the United States.
Under this
convention the government of New Granada has specially acknowledged itself to
be responsible to our citizens "for damages which were caused by the riot
at Panama on the 15th April, 1856." These claims, together with other
claims of our citizens which had been long urged in vain, are referred for
adjustment to a board of commissioners. I submit a copy of the convention to
Congress, and recommend the legislation necessary to carry it into effect.
Persevering efforts
have been made for the adjustment of the claims of American citizens against
the government of Costa Rica, and I am happy to inform you that these have
finally prevailed. A convention was signed at the city of San Jose on the 2d
July last, between the minister resident of the United States in Costa Rica and
the plenipotentiaries of that republic, referring these claims to a board of
commissioners, and providing for the payment of their awards. This convention
will be submitted immediately to the Senate for their constitutional action.
The claims of our
citizens upon the republic of Nicaragua have not yet been provided for by
treaty, although diligent efforts for this purpose have been made by our
minister resident to that republic These are still continued with a fair
prospect of success.
Our relations with
Mexico remain in a most unsatisfactory condition. In my last two annual
messages I discussed extensively the subject of these relations, and do not now
propose to repeat at length the facts and arguments then presented. They proved
conclusively that our citizens residing in Mexico, and our merchants trading
thereto, had suffered a series of wrongs and outrages such as we have never
patiently borne from any other nation. For these our successive ministers,
invoking the faith of treaties, had, in the name of their country, persistently
demanded redress and indemnification, but without the slightest effect. Indeed,
so confident had the Mexican authorities become of our patient endurance, that
they universally believed they might commit these outrages upon American
citizens with absolute impunity. Thus wrote our minister in 1856, and expressed
the opinion, that "nothing but a manifestation of the power of the
government and of its purpose to punish these wrongs will avail."
Afterwards, in 1857,
came the adoption of a new constitution for Mexico, the election of a president
and congress under its provisions, and the inauguration of the president.
Within one short month, however, this president was expelled from the capital
by a rebellion in the army; and the supreme power of the republic was assigned
to General Zuloaga. This usurper was, in his turn, soon compelled to retire,
and give place to General Miramon.
Under the
constitution which had thus been adopted, Señor Juarez, as chief justice of the
supreme court, became the lawful president of the republic; and it was for the
maintenance of the constitution and his authority derived from it, that the
civil war commenced, and still continues to be prosecuted.
Throughout the year
1858, the constitutional party grew stronger and stronger. In the previous
history of Mexico, a successful military revolution at the capital had almost
universally been the signal for submission throughout the republic. Not so on
the present occasion. A majority of the citizens persistently sustained the
constitutional government. When this was recognized in April, 1859, by the
government of the United States, its authority extended over a large majority
of the Mexican States and people, including Vera Cruz, and all the other
important sea-ports of the republic From that period our commerce with Mexico
began to revive, and the constitutional government has afforded it all the
protection in its power.
Meanwhile, the
government of Miramon still held sway at the capital and over the surrounding
country, and continued its outrages against the few American citizens who still
had the courage to remain within its power. To cap the climax, after the battle
of Tacubaya, in April, 1859, General Marquez ordered three citizens of the United
States, two of them physicians, to be seized in the hospital at that place,
taken out and shot, without crime, and without trial. This was done,
notwithstanding our unfortunate countrymen were at the moment engaged in the
holy cause of affording relief to the soldiers of both parties who had been
wounded in the battle, without making any distinction between them.
The time had
arrived, in my opinion, when this government was bound to exert its power to
avenge and redress the wrongs of our citizens, and to afford them protection in
Mexico. The interposing obstacle was that the portion of the country under the
sway of Miramon, could not be reached without passing over territory under the
jurisdiction of the constitutional government. Under these circumstances, I
deemed it my duty to recommend to Congress, in my last annual message, the
employment of a sufficient military force to penetrate into the interior, where
the government of Miramon was to be found, with, or if need be, without the
consent of the Juarez government, though it was not doubted that this consent
could be obtained. Never have I had a clearer conviction on any subject than of
the justice, as well as wisdom, of such a policy. No other alternative was
left, except the entire abandonment of our fellow-citizens who had gone to
Mexico under the faith of treaties to the systematic injustice, cruelty, and
oppression of Miramon's government. Besides, it is almost certain that the
simple authority to employ this force would of itself have accomplished all our
objects, without striking a single blow. The constitutional government would,
then, ere this have been established at the city of Mexico, and would have been
ready and willing, to the extent of its ability, to do us justice.
In addition, and I
deem this a most important consideration, European governments would have been
deprived of all pretext to interfere in the territorial and domestic concerns
of Mexico. We should thus have been relieved from the obligation of resisting,
even by force, should this become necessary, any attempt by these governments
to deprive our neighboring republic of portions of her territory, a duty from
which we could not shrink without abandoning the traditional and established
policy of the American people. I am happy to observe that, firmly relying upon
the justice and good faith of these governments, there is no present danger
that such a contingency will happen.
Having discovered
that my recommendations would not be sustained by Congress, the next
alternative was to accomplish, in some degree, if possible, the same objects by
treaty stipulations with the constitutional government. Such treaties were
accordingly concluded by our late able and excellent minister to Mexico, and on
the 4th of January last were submitted to the Senate for ratification. As these
have not yet received the final action of that body, it would be improper for
me to present a detailed statement of their provisions. Still, I may be
permitted to express the opinion in advance, that they are calculated to
promote the agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial interests of the
country, and to secure our just influence with an adjoining republic as to
whose fortunes and fate we can never feel indifferent; whilst at the same time
they provide for the payment of a considerable amount towards the satisfaction
of the claims of our injured fellow citizens.
At the period of my
inauguration I was confronted in Kansas by a revolutionary government existing
under what is called the ''Topeka constitution." Its avowed object was to
subdue the territorial government by force, and to inaugurate what was called
the "Topeka government" in its stead. To accomplish this object an
extensive military organization was formed, and its command intrusted to the most
violent revolutionary leaders. Under these circumstances it became my
imperative duty to exert the whole constitutional power of the Executive to
prevent the flames of civil war from again raging in Kansas; which, in the
excited state of the public mind, both North and South, might have extended
into the neighboring States. The hostile parties in Kansas had been inflamed
against each other, by emissaries both from the North and the South, to a
degree of malignity without parallel in our history. To prevent actual collision,
and to assist the civil magistrates in enforcing the laws, a strong detachment
of the army was stationed in the Territory, ready to aid the marshal and his
deputies when lawfully called upon as a posse comitatus in the execution of
civil and criminal process. Still the troubles in Kansas could not have been
permanently settled without an election by the people.
The ballot-box is
the surest arbiter of disputes among freemen. Under this conviction every
proper effort was employed to induce the hostile parties to vote at the
election of delegates to frame a State constitution, and afterwards at the
election to decide whether Kansas should be a slave or free State.
The insurgent party
refused to vote at either, lest this might be considered a recognition on their
part of the territorial government established by Congress. A better spirit,
however, seemed soon after to prevail, and the two parties met face to face at
the third election, held on the first Monday of January, 1858, for members of
the legislature and State officers under the Lecompton constitution. The result
was the triumph of the anti-slavery party at the polls. This decision of the
ballot-box proved clearly that this party were in the majority, and removed the
danger of civil war. From that time we have heard little or nothing of the
Topeka government, and all serious danger of revolutionary troubles in Kansas
was then at an end.
The Lecompton
constitution which had been thus recognized at this State election, by the
votes of both political parties in Kansas, was transmitted to me with the
request that I should present it to Congress. This I could not have refused to
do without violating my clearest and strongest convictions of duty. The
constitution and all the proceedings which preceded and followed its formation,
were fair and regular on their face. I then believed, and experience has
proved, that the interests of the people of Kansas would have been best
consulted by its admission as a State into the Union, especially as the majority,
within a brief period, could have amended the constitution according to their
will and pleasure. If fraud existed in all or any of these proceedings, it was
not for the President but for Congress to investigate and determine the
question of fraud, and what ought to be its consequences. If at the first two
elections the majority refused to vote, it cannot be pretended that this
refusal to exercise the elective franchise could invalidate an election fairly
held under lawful authority, even if they had not subsequently voted at the
third election. It is true that the whole constitution had not been submitted
to the people as I always desired; but the precedents are numerous of the
admission of States into the Union without such submission. It would not comport
with my present purpose to review the proceedings of Congress upon the
Lecompton constitution. It is sufficient to observe that their final action has
removed the last vestige of serious revolutionary troubles. The desperate band
recently assembled under a notorious outlaw in the southern portion of the
Territory, to resist the execution of the laws, and to plunder peaceful
citizens, will, I doubt not, be speedily subdued and brought to justice.
Had I treated the
Lecompton constitution as a nullity and refused to transmit it to Congress, it
is not difficult to imagine, whilst recalling the position of the country at
that moment, what would have been the disastrous consequences, both in and out
of the Territory, from such a dereliction of duty on the part of the Executive.
Peace has also been
restored within the Territory of Utah, which at the commencement of my
administration was in a state of open rebellion. This was the more dangerous,
as the people animated by a fanatical spirit and entrenched within their
distant mountain fastnesses, might have made a long and formidable resistance.
Cost what it might it was necessary to bring them into subjection to the
Constitution and the laws. Sound policy, therefore, as well as humanity,
required that this object should, if possible, be accomplished without the
effusion of blood. This could only be effected by sending a military force into
the Territory sufficiently strong to convince the people that resistance would
be hopeless, and at the same time to offer them a pardon for past offenses on
condition of immediate submission to the government. This policy was pursued
with eminent success, and the only cause for regret is the heavy expenditure
required to march a large detachment of the army to that remote region, and to
furnish it subsistence.
Utah is now
comparatively peaceful and quiet, and the military force has been withdrawn,
except that portion of it necessary to keep the Indians in check, and to
protect the emigrant trains on their way to our Pacific possessions.
In my first annual
message I promised to employ my best exertions, in cooperation with Congress,
to reduce the expenditures of the government within the limits of a wise and
judicious economy. An overflowing treasury had produced habits of prodigality
and extravagance which could only be gradually corrected. The work required
both time and patience. I applied myself diligently to this task from the
beginning, and was aided by the able and energetic efforts of the heads of the
different executive departments. The result of our labors in this good cause
did not appear in the sum total of our expenditures for the first two years,
mainly in consequence of the extraordinary expenditure necessarily incurred in
the Utah expedition, and the very large amount of the contingent expenses of
Congress during this period. These greatly exceeded the pay and mileage of the
members. For the year ending June 30, 1858, whilst the pay and mileage amounted
to $1,490,214, the contingent expenses rose to $2,093,309.79, and for the year
ending June 30, 1859, whilst the pay and mileage amounted to $859,093.66, the
contingent expenses amounted $1,431,565.78. I am happy, however, to be able to
inform you that during the last fiscal year ending June 30, 1860, the total
expenditures of the government in all its branches, legislative, executive, and
judicial, exclusive of the public debt, were reduced to the sum of
$55,402,465.46. This conclusively appears from the books of the Treasury. In
the year ending June 30, 1858, the total expenditure, exclusive of the public
debt, amounted to $71,901,129.77, and that for the year ending June 30, 1859,
to $66,346,226.13. Whilst the books of the Treasury show an actual expenditure
of $59,848,474.72 for the year ending June 30, 1860, including $1,040,667.71
for the contingent expenses of Congress, there must be deducted from this
amount the sum of $4,296,009.26, with the interest upon it of $150,000,
appropriated by the act of February 15, 1860, "for the purpose of
supplying the deficiency in the revenues and defraying the expenses of the Post
Office Department for the year ending June 30, 1859." This sum, therefore,
justly chargeable to the year 1859, must be deducted from the sum of
$59,848,474.72 in order to ascertain the expenditure for the year ending June
30, 1860, which leaves a balance for the expenditures of that year of
$55,402,465.46. The interest on the public debt, including treasury notes for
the same fiscal year, ending June 30, 1860, amounted to $3,177,314.62, which,
added to the above sum of $55,402,465.46, makes the aggregate of
$58,579,780.08.
It ought, in justice
to be observed, that several of the estimates from the departments for the year
ending June 30, 1860, were reduced by Congress below what was and still is
deemed compatible with the public interest. Allowing a liberal margin of
$2,500,000 for this reduction and for other causes, it may be safely asserted
that the sum of $61,000,000, or, at the most, $62,000,000, is amply sufficient
to administer the government and to pay the interest on the public debt, unless
contingent events should hereafter render extraordinary expenditures necessary.
This result has been
attained in a considerable degree by the care exercised by the appropriate
departments in entering into public contracts. I have myself never interfered
with the award of any such contract, except in a single case, with the
Colonization Society, deeming it advisable to cast the whole responsibility in
each case on the proper head of the department, with the general instruction
that these contracts should always be given to the lowest and best bidder. It
has ever been my opinion that public contracts are not a legitimate source of
patronage, to be conferred upon personal or political favorites; but that, in
all such cases, a public officer is bound to act for the government as a
prudent individual would act for himself.
It is with great
satisfaction I communicate the fact that since the date of my last annual
message not a single slave has been imported into the United States in
violation of the laws prohibiting the African slave trade. This statement is
founded upon a thorough examination and investigation of the subject. Indeed,
the spirit which prevailed some time since among a portion of our
fellow-citizens in favor of this trade seems to have entirely subsided.
I also congratulate
you upon the public sentiment which now exists against the crime of setting on
foot military expeditions within the limits of the United States, to proceed
from thence and make war upon the people of unoffending States with whom we are
at peace. In this respect a happy change has been effected since the
commencement of my administration. It surely ought to be the prayer of every
Christian and patriot that such expeditions may never again receive countenance
in our country, or depart from our shores.
It would be a
useless repetition to do more than refer with earnest commendation to my former
recommendations in favor of the Pacific railroad; of the grant of power to the
President to employ the naval force in the vicinity for the protection of the
lives and property of our fellow-citizens passing in transit over the different
Central American routes against sudden and lawless outbreaks and depredations;
and also to protect American merchant vessels, their crews and cargoes, against
violent and unlawful seizure and confiscation in the ports of Mexico and the
South. American republics, when these may be in a disturbed and revolutionary
condition. It is my settled conviction, that without such a power we do not
afford that protection to those engaged in the commerce of the country which
they have a right to demand.
I again recommend to
Congress the passage of a law, in pursuance of the provisions of the
Constitution, appointing a day certain previous to the 4th March in each year
of an odd number, for the election of representatives throughout all the
States. A similar power has already been exercised, with general approbation,
in the appointment of the same day throughout the Union for holding the election
of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States. My attention
was earnestly directed to this subject from the fact that the Thirty-fifth
Congress terminated on the 3d March, 1859, without making the necessary
appropriation for the service of the Post Office Department. I was then forced
to consider the best remedy for this omission, and an immediate call of the
present Congress was the natural resort. Upon inquiry, however, I ascertained
that fifteen out of the thirty-three States composing the Confederacy were
without representatives, and that consequently these fifteen States would be
disfranchised by such a call. These fifteen States will be in the same
condition on the 4th March next. Ten of them cannot elect representatives, according
to existing State laws, until different periods, extending from the beginning
of August next until the months of October and November. In my last message I
gave warning that in a time of sudden and alarming danger the salvation of our
institutions might depend upon the power of the President immediately to
assemble a full Congress to meet the emergency.
It is now quite
evident that the financial necessities of the government will require a
modification of the tariff during your present session for the purpose of
increasing the revenue. In this aspect, I desire to reiterate the
recommendation contained in my last two annual messages in favor of imposing
specific, instead of ad valorem, duties on all imported articles to which these
can be properly applied. From long observation and experience, I am convinced
that specific duties are necessary, both to protect the revenue and to secure
to our manufacturing interests that amount of incidental encouragement which
unavoidably results from a revenue tariff.
As an abstract
proposition, it may be admitted that ad valorem duties would in theory be the
most just and equal. But if the experience of this and of all other commercial
nations has demonstrated that such duties cannot be assessed and collected
without great frauds upon the revenue, then it is the part of wisdom to resort
to specific duties. Indeed, from the very nature of an ad valorem duty, this
must be the result. Under it the inevitable consequence is, that foreign goods
will be entered at less than their true value. The Treasury will, therefore,
lose the duty on the difference between their real and fictitious value, and to
this extent we are defrauded.
The temptations
which ad valorem duties present to a dishonest importer are irresistible. His
object is to pass his goods through the custom-house at the very lowest
valuation necessary to save them from confiscation. In this he too often
succeeds, in spite of the vigilance of the revenue officers. Hence the resort
to false invoices, one for the purchaser and another for the custom-house, and
to other expedients to defraud the government. The honest importer produces his
invoice to the collector, stating the actual price at which he purchased the
articles abroad. Not so the dishonest importer, and the agent of the foreign
manufacturer. And here it may be observed that a very large proportion of the
manufactures imported from abroad are consigned for sale to commission
merchants, who are mere agents employed by the manufacturers. In such cases no
actual sale has been made to fix their value. The foreign manufacturer, if he
be dishonest, prepares an invoice of the goods, not at their actual value, but
at the very lowest rate necessary to escape detection. In this manner the
dishonest importer and the foreign manufacturer enjoy a decided advantage over
the honest merchant. They are thus enabled to undersell the fair trader, and
drive him from the market. In fact, the operation of this system has already
driven from the pursuits of honorable commerce many of that class of regular
and conscientious merchants whose character throughout the world is the pride
of our country.
The remedy for these
evils is to be found in specific duties, so far as this may be practicable.
They dispense with any inquiry at the custom-house into the actual cost or
value of the article, and it pays the precise amount of duty previously fixed
by law. They present no temptations to the appraisers of foreign goods, who
receive but small salaries, and might, by undervaluation in a few cases, render
themselves independent.
Besides, specific
duties best conform to the requisition in the Constitution, that "no
preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports
of one State over those of another." Under our ad valorem system such
preferences are to some extent inevitable, and complaints have often been made
that the spirit of this provision has been violated by a lower appraisement of
the same articles at one port than at another.
An impression
strangely enough prevails, to some extent, that specific duties are necessarily
protective duties. Nothing can be more fallacious. Great Britain glories in
free trade, and yet her whole revenue from imports is at the present moment
collected under a system of specific duties. It is a striking fact in this
connection, that in the commercial treaty of January 23,1860, between France
and England, one of the articles provides that the ad valorem duties which it
imposes shall be converted into specific duties within six months from its
date, and these are to be ascertained by making an average of the prices for
six months previous to that time. The reverse of the propositions would be
nearer to the truth, because a much larger amount of revenue would be collected
by merely converting the ad valorem duties of a tariff into equivalent specific
duties. To this extent the revenue would be increased, and in the same
proportion the specific duty might be diminished.
Specific duties
would secure to the American manufacturer the incidental protection to which he
is fairly entitled under a revenue tariff, and to this surely no person would
object. The framers of the existing tariff have gone further, and in a liberal
spirit have discriminated in favor of large and useful branches of our manufactures,
not by raising the rate of duty upon the importation of similar articles from
abroad, but, what is the same in effect, by admitting articles free of duty
which enter into the composition of their fabrics.
Under the present
system, it has been often truly remarked that this incidental protection
decreases when the manufacturer needs it most and increases when he needs it
least, and constitutes a sliding scale which always operates against him. The
revenues of the country are subject to similar fluctuations. Instead of
approaching a steady standard, as would be the case under a system of specific
duties, they sink and rise with the sinking and rising prices of articles in
foreign countries. It would not be difficult for Congress to arrange a system
of specific duties which would afford additional stability both to our revenue
and our manufactures, and without injury or injustice to any interest of the
country. This might be accomplished by ascertaining the average value of any
given article for a series of years at the place of exportation, and by simply
converting the rate of ad valorem duty upon it, which might be deemed necessary
for revenue purposes, into the form of a specific duty. Such an arrangement could
not injure the consumer. If he should pay a greater amount of duty one year,
this would be counterbalanced by a lesser amount the next, and in the end the
aggregate would be the same.
I desire to call
your immediate attention to the present condition of the Treasury, so ably and
clearly presented by the Secretary, in his report to Congress; and to recommend
that measures be promptly adopted, to enable it to discharge its pressing
obligations. The other recommendations of the report are well worthy of your
favorable consideration .
I herewith transmit
to Congress the reports of the Secretaries of War, of the Navy, of the
Interior, and of the Postmaster General. The recommendations and suggestion
which they contain are highly valuable, and deserve your careful attention.
The report of the
Postmaster General details the circumstances under which Cornelius Vanderbilt,
on my request, agreed, in the month of July last, to carry the ocean mails
between our Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Had he not thus acted, this important
intercommunication must have been suspended, at least for a season. The
Postmaster General had no power to make him any other compensation than the
postages on the mail matter, which he might carry. It was known at the time
that these postages would fall far short of an adequate compensation, as well
as of the sum which the same service had previously cost the government. Mr.
Vanderbilt, in a commendable spirit, was willing to rely upon the justice of
Congress to make up the deficiency; and I, therefore, recommend that an
appropriation may be granted for this purpose.
I should do great
injustice to the Attorney General, were I to omit the mention of his
distinguished services in the measures adopted and prosecuted by him for the
defense of the government against numerous and unfounded claims to land in
California, purporting to have been made by the Mexican government previous to
the treaty of cession. The successful opposition to these claims has saved the
United States public property, worth many millions of dollars, and to
individuals holding title under them to at least an equal amount. It has been
represented to me, from sources which I deem reliable, that the inhabitants in
several portions of Kansas have been reduced nearly to a state of starvation,
on account of the almost total failure of their crops, whilst the harvests in
every other portion of the country have been abundant. The prospect before them
for the approaching winter is well calculated to enlist the sympathies of every
heart. The destitution appears to be so general that it cannot be relieved by
private contributions, and they are in such indigent circumstances as to be
unable to purchase the necessaries of life for themselves. I refer the subject
to Congress. If any constitutional measure for their relief can devised, I
would recommend its adoption.
I cordially commend
to your favorable regard the interests of the people of this District. They are
eminently entitled to your consideration, especially since, unlike the people
of the States, they can appeal to no government except that of the Union.
JAMES BUCHANAN.
Washington City, December 3, 1860.
SOURCE: John Bassett
Moore, Editor, The Works of James
Buchanan, Vol. 11, p. 7-43
No comments:
Post a Comment