The resolutions which have just been read, and which are to form the
subject of the present discussion, are of the greatest importance,
involving interests of the highest character, and a system of policy
which, in my opinion, lies at the bottom of any restoration of the
prosperity of the country. In discussing them, I would address myself
to you in the language of plainness, of soberness, and truth. I did not
come here as if I were entering a garden full of flowers, and of the
richest shrubbery, to cull the tea-roses, the japonicas, the jasmines,
and woodbines, and weave them into a garland of the gayest colors,
that, by the beauty of their assortment, and by their fragrance, I may
gratify fair ladies. Nor is it my wish――it is far, far from my wish――to
revive any subjects of a party character, or which might be calculated
to renew the animosities which unhappily have hitherto prevailed
between the two great political parties in the country. My course is
far different from this; it is to speak to you of the sad condition
of our country; to point out not the remote and original, but the
proximate, the immediate causes which have produced, and are likely to
continue our distresses, and to suggest a remedy. If any one, in or out
of the senate, has imagined it to be my intention, on this occasion, to
indulge in any ambitious display of language, to attempt any rhetorical
flights, or to deal in any other figures than figures of arithmetic,
he will find himself greatly disappointed. The farmer, if he is a
judicious man, does not begin to plough till he has first laid off
his land, and marked it off at proper distances, by planting stakes,
by which his ploughmen are to be guided in their movements; and the
ploughman, accordingly, fixes his eye upon the stake opposite to
the end of the destined furrow, and then endeavors to reach it by
a straight and direct furrow. These resolutions are my stakes.
But, before I proceed to examine them, let me first meet and obviate
certain objections, which, as I understand, have been or may be urged
against them generally. I learn that it is said of these resolutions,
that they present only general propositions, and that, instead of
this, I should at once have introduced separate bills, and entered into
detail, and shown in what manner I propose to accomplish the objects
which the resolutions propose. Let me here say, in reply, that the
ancient principles and mode of legislation which has ever prevailed
from the foundation of this government, has been to fix first upon the
general principles which are to guide us, and then to carry out these
principles by detailed legislation. Such has ever been the course
pursued, not only in the country from which we derive our legislative
institutions, but in our own. The memorable resolution offered in the
British house of commons, by the celebrated Mr. Dunning, is no doubt
familiar to the mind of every one――that ‘the power of the crown (and
it is equally true of our own chief magistrate) had increased, was
increasing, and ought to be diminished.’ When I was a member of another
legislative body, which meets in the opposite extremity of this capitol,
it was the course, in reference to the great questions of internal
improvement, and other leading measures of public policy, to propose
specific resolutions, going to mark out the principles of action
which ought to be adopted, and then to carry out these principles by
subsequent enactments. Another objection is urged, as I understand,
against one of these resolutions, which is this: that, by the
constitution, no bill for raising revenue can originate any where but
in the house of representatives. It is true, that we cannot originate
such a bill; but, undoubtedly, in contemplating the condition of
the public affairs, and in the right consideration of all questions
touching the amount of the revenue, and the mode in which it shall
be raised, and involving the great questions of expenditure and
retrenchment, and how far the expenses of the government may safely and
properly be diminished, it is perfectly legitimate for us to deliberate
and to act as duty may demand. There can be no question but that,
during the present session of congress, a bill of revenue will be sent
to us from the other house; and if, when it comes, we shall first have
gone through with a consideration of the general subject, fixing the
principles of policy proper to be pursued in relation to it, it will
greatly economize the time of the senate, and proportionably save a
large amount of the public money.
Perhaps no better mode can be pursued of discussing the resolutions
I have had the honor to present, than to take them up in the order
of their arrangement, as I presented them to the senate, after much
deliberate consideration.
The first resolution declares,
‘That it is the duty of the general government, for conducting
its administration, to provide an adequate revenue within the
year, to meet the current expenses of the year; and that any
expedient, either by loan or treasury notes, to supply, in time
of peace, a deficiency of revenue, especially during successive
years, is unwise, and must lead to pernicious consequences.’
I have heard it asserted, that this resolution is but a truism. If so,
I regret to say, that it is one from which governments too often depart,
and from which this government especially has departed during the last
five years. Has an adequate revenue been provided within each of those
years, to meet the necessary expenses of those same years? No; far
otherwise.
In 1837, at the called session, instead of imposing the requisite
amount of taxes on the free articles, according to the provisions
of the compromise act, what was the resort of the administration? To
treasury notes. And the same expedient of treasury notes was ever since
adopted, from year to year, to supply the deficit accruing. And, of
necessity, this policy cast upon the administration succeeding, an
unascertained, unliquidated debt, inducing a temporary necessity on
that administration, to have resort to the same means of supply.
I do not advert to these facts with any purpose of crimination or
recrimination. Far from it. For we have reached that state of the
public affairs when the country lies bleeding at every pore, and when,
as I earnestly hope and trust, we shall, by common consent, dispense
with our party prejudices, and agree to look at any measure proposed
for the public relief as patriots and statesmen. I say, then, that
during the four years of the administration of Mr. Van Buren, there
was an excess of expenditure over the income of the government, to
the amount of between seven and eight millions of dollars; and I say
that it was the duty of that administration, the moment they found
this deficit to exist in the revenue, to have resorted to the adequate
remedy by laying the requisite amount of taxes on the free articles to
meet and to supply the deficiency.
I shall say nothing more on the first resolution, because I do hope
that, whatever the previous practice of this government may have been,
there is no senator here who will hesitate to concur in the truth of
the general propositions it contains.
The next three resolutions all relate to the same general
subjects――subjects which I consider much the most important of any here
set forth; and I shall, for that reason, consider them together.
The second resolution asserts,
‘That such an adequate revenue cannot be obtained by duties
on foreign imports, without adopting a higher rate than twenty
per centum, as provided for in the compromise act, which, at
the time of its passage, was supposed and assumed as a rate
that would supply a sufficient revenue for an economical
administration of the government.’
The third resolution concludes,
‘That the rate of duties on foreign imports ought to be
augmented beyond the rate of twenty per centum, so as to produce
a net revenue of twenty-six millions of dollars――twenty-two
for the ordinary expenses of government, two for the payment
of the existing debt, and two millions as a reserved fund for
contingencies.’
The fourth resolution asserts,
‘That, in the adjustment of a tariff to raise an amount of
twenty-six millions of revenue, the principles of the compromise
act generally should be adhered to; and that especially a
maximum rate of ad valorem duties should be established, from
which there ought to be as little departure as possible.’
The first question which these resolutions suggest, is this: what
should be the amount of the annual expenditures of this government? Now,
on this point, I shall not attempt, what is impossible, to be exact and
precise in stating what that may be. We can only make an approximation.
No man, in his private affairs, can say, or pretends to say, at
the beginning of the year, precisely what shall be the amount of
his expenses during the year; that must depend on many unforeseen
contingencies, which cannot, with any precision, be calculated
beforehand; all that can be done is to make an approximation to what
ought to be or what may be the amount. Before I consider that question,
allow me to correct, here, an assertion made first by the senator
from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun,) and subsequently by the senator
from Missouri near me, (Mr. Linn,) and I believe by one or two other
gentlemen, namely, that the whig party, when out of power, asserted
that, if trusted with the helm, they would administer this government
at an amount of expenditure not exceeding thirteen millions of dollars.
I hope, if such an assertion was actually made by either or all
of these gentlemen, that it will never be repeated again, without
resorting to proof to sustain it. I know of no such position ever taken
by the whig party, or by any prominent member of the whig party. Sure I
am that the party generally pledged itself to no such reduction of the
public expenses――none.
And I again say that I trust, before such an assertion is repeated,
the proofs will be adduced. For in this case, as in others, that which
is asserted and reiterated, comes at last to be believed. The whig
party did promise economy and retrenchment, and I trust will perform
their promise. I deny (in no offensive sense) that the whig party ever
promised to reduce the expenditures of this government to thirteen
millions of dollars. No; but this was what they said: during the
four years of the administration of Mr. Adams, the average amount
of the public expenditure was but thirteen millions, and you charged
that administration with outrageous extravagance, and came yourselves
into power on promises to reduce the annual expenditure; but, having
obtained power, instead of reducing the public expenses, you carried
them up to the astonishing amount of near forty millions. But, while
the whigs never asserted that they would administer the government with
thirteen millions, our opponents, our respected opponents, after having
been three years in power, instead of bringing the expenses below the
standard of Mr. Adams’s administration, declared that fifteen millions
was the amount at which the expenditures should be fixed. This was the
ground taken by Mr. McLane, when he was at the head of the treasury.
I have his report before me; but as the fact, I presume, will not be
denied, I forbear to read from it. He suggests, as the fit amount to
be raised by the tariff he had proposed, the sum of fifteen millions
of dollars as sufficient to meet the wants of the government.
I hope now I have shown that the whig party, before they obtained
power, never were pledged to bring down the public expenses, either
to thirteen or to fifteen millions. They were pledged, I admit, to
retrench unnecessary expenditures, and to make a reasonable deduction,
whenever it could properly be made, consistently with the public
service; that process, as I understand, is now going on in both houses,
and I trust the fruits will be seen before the end of the present
session.
Unpledged, therefore, as the whig party was, as to any specific amount,
the question recurs, at what sum can the expenses of the government be
now fixed?
I repeat that the exact amount is difficult to be ascertained. I have
stated it in the resolution I now offer, at _twenty-two millions_; and
I shall soon show how I have arrived at the amount. But, before I do
that, allow me to call the attention of the senate to the expenditures
of the preceding administration; for, in attempting to fix a sum for
the future, I know of no course but to look back upon the experience of
the past, and then to endeavor to deduce from it the probable amount of
future expenditure. What, then, were the expenditures of the four years
of the past administration?
In 1837 the amount was $37,265,037.15
In 1838 it was 39,455,438.35
In 1839 it was 37,614,936.15
In 1840 it was 28,226,533.81
―――――――――――――――
Making an aggregate of $142,561,945.46
Which gives us an average per year of thirty-five million, six
hundred and forty thousand, four hundred and eighty-six dollars, and
thirty-eight cents.
The sum I have proposed is only twenty-two millions, which deducted
from thirty-five, as above, leaves a reduction of thirteen million, six
hundred and forty thousand dollars――being a sum greater than the whole
average expenditure of the extravagant and profligate administration of
Mr. Adams, which they told us was so enormous that it must be reduced
by a great ‘retrenchment and reform.’
I am not here going to inquire into the items which composed the large
expenditures of the four years of Mr. Van Buren’s administration. I
know what has been said, and will again be said, on that subject――that
there were many items of extra expenditure, which may never occur again.
Be it so; but do we not know that every administration has its extras,
and that these may be expected to arise, and will and must arise,
under every administration beneath the sun? But take this also into
view in looking at the expenses of that administration: that less was
expended on the national defence, less in the construction or repair
of fortifications, less for the navy, and less for other means of
repelling a foreign attack, than, perhaps, ought to have been expended.
At present we are all animated with a common zeal and determination on
the subject of defence; all feel the necessity of some adequate plan of
defence, as well upon the ocean as the land, and especially of putting
our navy and our fortifications in a better state to defend the honor
and protect the rights of the nation. We feel this necessity, although
we all trust that the calamity of a war may be averted. This calls
for a greater amount of money for these purposes than was appropriated
under Mr. Van Buren’s administration; beside which, in the progress
of affairs, unforeseen exigencies may arise, and do constantly occur,
calling for other appropriations needed, which no man can anticipate.
Every ministry in every government, every administration of our own
government, has its extraordinaries and its contingencies; and it
is no apology for Mr. Van Buren’s administration to say, that the
circumstances which occasioned its expenditures were extraordinary and
peculiar. Making all the allowances which its warmest friends can ask
for the expenses of the inglorious war in Florida――a contest which has
profusely wasted not only the resources of the treasury, but the best
blood of the nation――making the amplest allowance for this and for
all other extras whatever, the sum expended by the last administration
still remains to be far, far beyond what is proposed in these
resolutions, as sufficient for the present, and for years to come. It
must, in candor, be conceded that this is a very great diminution of
the national expenditure; and such, if nothing else were done, would
redeem the pledge of the whig party.
But let us now consider the subject in another light. Thirteen
millions was the average annual amount of expenditure under Mr. Adams’s
administration, which terminated thirteen years ago. I should be
authorized, therefore, to take the commencement of his administration,
in 1825, being a period of seventeen years, in making a comparison
of the progressive increase of the national expenditures; or, at
all events, adding one half of Mr. Adams’s term, to take the period
as running fifteen years back; but I shall not avail myself of this
perfectly fair calculation; and I will therefore say, that at the end
of thirteen years, from the time when the expenditures were thirteen
millions, I propose that they be raised to twenty-two millions. And is
this an extraordinary increase for such a period, in a country of such
rapid increase and development as this is? What has occurred during
this lapse of time? The army has been doubled, or nearly so; it has
increased from a little over six thousand men to twelve thousand. We
have built six, eight, or ten ships of the line; (I do not recollect
the precise number;) two or three new states have been added to the
union; and two periodical enumerations have been made to the national
population; besides which, there have been, and yet are to be, vast
expenditures, on works of fortification and national defence. Now,
when we look at the increase in the number of members in both houses of
congress, and consider the necessary and inevitable progress and growth
of the nation, is it, I ask, an extraordinary thing, that, at the end
of a period of thirteen years, our expenditures should increase from
thirteen to twenty-two millions? If we take the period at seventeen
years, (as we fairly may,) or at but fifteen years, the increase of
expenses will be found not to go beyond the proportional increase
of our population within the same period. That increase is found to
be about four per centum annually; and the increase of government
expenditures, at the rate above stated, will not exceed that. This is
independent of any augmentation of the army or navy, of the addition
of new states and territories, or the enlargement of the numbers in
congress. Taking the addition, at the end of thirteen years, to be
nine millions of dollars, it will give an annual average increase of
about seven hundred thousand dollars. And I think that the government
of no people, young, free, and growing, as is this nation, can, under
circumstances like ours, be justly charged with rashness, recklessness,
or extravagance, if its expenses increase but at the rate of seven
hundred thousand dollars per annum. If our posterity, after their
numbers shall have swelled to one hundred millions, shall find that
their expenses have augmented in no greater ratio than this, they will
have no cause of complaint of the profuseness or extravagance of their
government.
But, it should be recollected, that while I have fixed the rate of
expenditure at the sum I have mentioned, namely, twenty-two millions,
this does not preclude further reductions, if they shall be found
practicable, after existing abuses have been explored, and all useless
or unnecessary expenditures have been lopped off.
The honorable senator from South Carolina, (Mr. Calhoun,) has favored
us, on more occasions than one, with an account of the reforms he
effected, when at the head of the war department of this government;
and no man, certainly, can be less disposed than I am to deprive him of
a single feather which he thinks he put in his cap by that operation.
But what does he tell us was his experience in this business of
retrenchment? He tells us what we all know to be true――what every
father, every householder, especially finds to be true in his own
case――that it is much easier to plunge into extravagance than to
reduce expenses; and it is preëminently true of a nation. Every nation
finds it far easier to rush into an extravagant expenditure of the
money entrusted to its public agents, than to bring down the public
expenditures from a profuse and reckless to an economical standard. All
useful and salutary reforms must be made with care and circumspection.
The gentleman from South Carolina admits, that the reforms he
accomplished took him four years to bring about. It was not till after
four years of constant exertion that he was enabled to establish a
system of just accountability, and to bring down the expenses of the
army to that average per man, to which they were at length reduced. And
now, with all his personal knowledge of the difficulties of such a task,
was it kind in him, was it kind or fair in his associates, to taunt
us, as they have done, by already asking, ‘where are the reforms you
promised to accomplish when you were out of power?’
[Mr. Calhoun here rose to explain, and observed, that what he
had again and again said, on the subject of reforms, was no more
than this, that it was time the promised reforms should begin,
it was time they should _begin_; and that was all he now asked.]
Very well; if that is all he asks, the gentleman will not be
disappointed. We could not begin at the extra session; it could not
then reasonably be expected of us; for what is the duty of a new
administration, when it first comes into the possession of power? Its
immediate and pressing care is to carry on the government; to become
acquainted with the machine; to look how it acts in various parts,
and to take care that it shall not work injuriously to the public
interest. They cannot, at once, look back at the past abuses; it is not
practicable to do so; it must have time to look into the pigeon-holes
of the various bureaux, to find out what has been done, and what is
doing. Its first great duty is to keep the machine of government in
regular motion. It could not, therefore, be expected that congress
would go into a thorough process of reform at the extra session.
Its peculiar object then was to adopt measures of immediate and
indispensable relief to the people, and to the government. Besides
which, the subsequent misfortunes of the whig party were well known.
President Harrison occupied the chair of state but for a single month;
and the members of his cabinet left it under circumstances which,
let me here say, do them the highest honor. I do not enter upon the
inquiry whether the state of things, which they supposed to exist did
actually exist or not; but, believing it to exist, as they did, their
resignation presents one of the most signal examples of the sacrifice
of the honors and emoluments of high station, at great expense and
personal inconvenience, and of noble adherence to honor and good faith,
which the history of any country can show. But I may justly claim,
not only on behalf of the retiring secretaries, but for the whole whig
party, a stern adherence to principle, in utter disregard of the spoils
doctrine, and of all those baser motives and considerations which
address themselves to some men with so great a power. I say, then, that
the late extra session was no time to achieve a great, and extensive,
and difficult reform throughout the departments of the government; a
process like that can be attempted only during a regular session of
congress; and do not gentlemen know that it is now in progress, by
the faithful hands to which it has here and elsewhere in congress been
committed? and that an extraordinary committee has been raised in this
body, insomuch that, to effect it, the senate has somewhat shot from
its usual and appropriate orbit, by establishing a standing committee
of retrenchment? If the honorable senator from South Carolina took four
years to bring down the expenses of the war department, when under his
own immediate superintendence, I may surely, with confidence, make my
appeal to his sense of justice and liberality, to allow us, at least,
two years, before he reproaches us with a failure in a work so much
more extensive.
I will now say, that, in suggesting the propriety of fixing the
annual average expenditure of this government at twenty-two millions
of dollars, from this time, and for some years to come, it is not my
purpose to preclude any further reductions of expense, by the dismissal
of useless officers, the abolition of useless institutions, and the
reduction of unnecessary or extravagant expenditures. No man is more
desirous than I am of seeing this government administered at the
smallest possible expense consistent with the duties intrusted to us,
in the management of our public interests, both at home and abroad.
None will rejoice more, if it shall be found practicable to reduce our
expenses to eighteen, to fifteen, or even to thirteen millions. None,
I repeat it, will rejoice in such a triumph of economy more heartily
than I. None, none.
But now allow me to proceed to state by what process I have reached
the sum of twenty-two millions, as proposed in the resolution I have
offered.
The secretary of the treasury has presented to us estimates for the
current year, independent of permanent expenses, of a million and a
half, amounting to about twenty-four and a half millions, which may be
stated under the following heads, namely:
For civil list, foreign intercourse,
and miscellaneous $4,000,987.85
For the war department, including all
branches 11,717,791.27
Naval service 8,705,579.83
――――――――――――――
$24,424,358.95
And here let me say a single word in defence of the army. The
department of war comes to us with estimates for the sum of eleven
million, seven hundred and seventeen thousand, seven hundred and
ninety-two dollars, and twenty-seven cents; and those who look only
on the surface of things, may suppose that this sum is extraordinarily
large; but there are many items in that sum. I have before me a
statement, going to show, that, of that sum, only four millions are
asked for the military service proper――a sum less than is demanded for
the naval service proper, and only double the amount at which it stood
when the honorable gentleman from South Carolina left the department.
The sum was then about two millions of dollars; it is now not quite
four millions of dollars; while, during the same period, the army has
been nearly doubled, besides the raising of mounted regiments, the
most expensive, for that very reason, of any in the service. I think
that the gentleman from South Carolina, if he looks into the subject
in detail, will find that the cost of the army is not, at this hour,
greater per man, than it was when under his own personal administration.
So I am informed; and that, although the pay has been raised a dollar
a month, which has very largely augmented the expenditure.
The executive branch of the government has sent in estimates amounting
in all to twenty-four and a half millions of dollars, for the service
of the current year, which, with the million and a half of permanent
expenditure, makes twenty-six millions. How much is to be added to
that amount for appropriations not yet estimated, which may be made
during the session by congress, to meet honest claims, and for other
objects of a public nature? I remember one item proposed by my friend
near me, (Mr. Mangum,) for a quarter of a million for the building
of a steam-ship, an item not included in the estimates, but for which
the senate has already appropriated: besides which there are various
other items which have passed or will pass during the present session.
When the honorable gentleman from New Hampshire was at the head of
the treasury, he made, in his communications to congress, constant
complaints of this very practice. He well remembers that he was ever
complaining that the expenditures of government were swelled far
beyond the executive estimates, by appropriations made by congress
not estimated for by the departments. I have calculated that we shall
add to the twenty-six millions of dollars estimated for the executive
departments, or permanently required, at least one million and a half,
which would raise the sum for this year to twenty-seven millions and a
half.
How then do I propose to bring this down to twenty-two millions? I
have, I own, some fears that we shall not be able to effect it; but I
hope that we shall so far reduce the estimates and prevent unnecessary
appropriations, that the total expenditures shall not exceed that
amount. The mode in which I propose to reach such a result is this;
I suppose we may effect a reduction of the civil list to the amount
of half a million. That general head includes, among other things,
the expenses of the two houses, and, as I have heard, the other house
has already introduced a report which, if adopted, will cut down those
expenses one hundred thousand dollars, though I think that they should
be reduced much more. I estimate, then, three and a half millions for
the civil list, instead of four millions; then I estimate nine millions
for the war department, instead of eleven millions and seven hundred
and seventeen thousand dollars. In a conversation which I have lately
held with the chairman of the military committee of this body, he
expressed the apprehension, that it could not be reduced below ten
millions, but I hope it may be cut down to nine. As to the naval
service, the estimates of the department for that branch of the
service, amount to eight millions seven hundred and seven thousand
and five hundred dollars; an amount I think far too high, and indeed
quite extravagant. I was greatly astonished at learning the amount
was so large. Still I know that the navy is the favorite of all, and
justly; it is the boast of the nation, and our great resource and chief
dependence in the contingency of a war; no man thinks for a moment
of crippling or disabling this right arm of our defence. But I have
supposed that without injury the appropriation asked for might be
reduced from eight million, seven hundred and seven thousand, and five
hundred, to six million and five hundred thousand dollars. This would
put the reduction in the naval on a footing with that in the military
appropriation, and still leave a greater appropriation than usual to
that department. The reduction to six millions and a half is as large
as I think will be practicable, if we are to provide for proposed
experiments in the application of steam, and are, besides, to add
largely to the marine corps.
How, then, will the total of our expenditures stand? We shall have,
For the civil and diplomatic expenses
of the government $3,500,000
For the military service 9,000,000
For the naval service 6,500,000
For permanent appropriations 1,500,000
For appropriations not included in
estimates 1,500,000
―――――――――――
Making an aggregate of $22,000,000
To this amount I suppose, and hope, our expenses may be reduced,
until, on due investigation, it shall be discovered that still further
reductions may be effected.
Well, then, having fixed the amount at twenty-two millions for the
ordinary current expenses of government, I have supposed it necessary
and proper to add two millions more to make provision for the payment
of the existing national debt, which is, in the event of the loan’s
being taken up, seventeen millions. And then I go on to add two
millions more as a reserved fund, to meet contingencies; so that,
should there be a temporary rise of the expenditures beyond twenty-two
millions, or any sudden emergency should occur which could not be
anticipated or calculated on, there may be the requisite means in
the treasury to meet it. Nor has there been a single secretary at the
head of the treasury since the days of Mr. Gallatin, including the
respectable gentleman from New Hampshire opposite, (Mr. Woodbury,) who
has not held and expressed the opinion, that a reserved fund is highly
expedient and proper for contingencies. Thus I propose that twenty-two
millions shall be appropriated for ordinary expenses, two millions more
to provide for the public debt, and other two millions a reserved fund
to meet contingencies; making in all twenty-six millions.
The next inquiry which presents itself is, how this amount ought to
be raised? There are two modes of estimating the revenue to be derived
from foreign imports, and either of them presents only ground for a
conjectural result; but so fluctuating is the course of commerce, that
every one must see it to be impossible to estimate, with precision, the
exact amount of what it will yield. In forming my estimate I have taken
the amount of exports as presenting the best basis of calculation. But
here let me add, that at the treasury they have taken the imports as
the basis; and I am gratified to be able to state, that, I understand,
on comparing the results arrived at, although the calculations were
made without concert, those of the secretary turn out to be very nearly,
if not exactly, the same with those to which I have been conducted.
I will here state why it is I have taken the exports as the ground
of my calculations, adding thereto fifteen per centum for profits.
The exports are one means of making foreign purchases. Their value is
ascertained at the ports of exportation, under the act of 1820, and
the returns generally present the same value. The price of cotton, as
an example, at home, is always regulated by the price in the Liverpool
market. It follows, therefore, that by taking the value of any
commodity at the place of its export, you reach its true value; for, if
the price realized abroad be sometimes above and sometimes below that
amount, the excess and deficiency will probably neutralize each other.
This is the fairest mode for another reason: if, in any one year, more
foreign goods shall be purchased than the exports of that year would
pay for, a credit is created abroad which must be extinguished by the
exports of some succeeding year.
[Mr. Buchanan here inquired, if any deduction had been made by
Mr. Clay from the exports, to pay the interest, and so forth,
on American debt held abroad. Mr. Clay replied, that the senator
would presently see that he had.]
I think the senate will agree with me, in assuming, that the exports
form a more correct and reliable standard of estimation than the
imports; however that may be, the accidental coincidence between the
results arrived at in either mode, fortifies and proves the calculation
itself to have been founded in correct principles. Those results, as
shown by the secretary of the treasury, are now, I believe, in the
house, and I regretted that I could not examine them before I rose to
address the senate.
I will now show you that the exports from 1836 to 1841, inclusive, a
period of six years, amount to six hundred and twenty-one million, four
thousand, one hundred and twenty-five dollars, being an average annual
amount of one hundred and three million, five hundred thousand, six
hundred and eighty-seven dollars. That I take as presenting a safe
ground of calculations for the future. To this I propose to add fifteen
per centum for profits, in which I do but follow Mr. Ewing, the late
secretary, in his report at the extra session. It is certainly a great
profit, (I include, of course, all expenses and charges of every kind,)
and with this addition, the annual amount will be one hundred and
eighteen million, nine hundred and fifty-eight thousand, one hundred
and eighty-seven dollars, say one hundred and nineteen millions.
Deducting for the interest and principal of the American debt abroad,
ten millions per annum, it will leave a net amount of one hundred and
nine millions. There can be no dispute as to the propriety of such a
deduction: the debt exists; it must be provided for; and my fear is,
that this amount will prove too small to meet it. I think that much
more may probably be needed; but certainly none can object to the
reserve of ten millions. We thus get, as I said, a net balance from our
annual exports, including profits, of one hundred and nine millions.
Of this amount of importation, how much is now free from duty? The
free goods, including tea and coffee, amount to thirty millions; from
which amount I deduct for tea and coffee, assuming that they will be
subjected to moderate duties, twelve millions, leaving the amount of
free articles at eighteen millions; deduct this from one hundred and
nine millions, the amount of exports, and it will leave a balance of
ninety-one millions, which may be assumed as the amount of dutiable
articles for some years to come.
How, then, out of these ninety or ninety-one millions of dutiable goods
are we to raise a revenue of twenty-six millions? No man, I presume,
will rise here in his place and say, that we are to rely either on
direct or internal taxes. Who has the temerity to meet the waves of
popular indignation which will flow round and bury him, whoever he may
be, that should propose, in time of peace, to raise a revenue by direct
taxation? Yet this is the only resource to fly to, save the proceeds
of the public lands, on which I shall speak presently, and which I can
convince any man is not to be thought of. You are, therefore, to draw
this amount of twenty-six millions from the ninety-one millions of
dutiable articles imported; and, to reach that sum, at what rate per
centum must you go?
I shall here say nothing, or but a word or two, on the subject of home
valuation――a subject which a friend has care of, (Mr. Simmons,) than
whom none is more competent to its full elucidation. He thinks, as I
understand, that there can be devised a satisfactory system of such
valuation, and I heartily wish him success in the attempt. I will only
say that, in my opinion, if we raise but ten millions, without any
reference whatever to protection, without reference to any thing but
to mere honesty, however small the amount may be, we should ourselves
assess the value of the goods on which we lay the duty, and not leave
the value to be fixed by foreigners. As things now stand, we lay the
duty, but foreigners fix the value of the goods. Give me but the power
of fixing the value of the goods, and I care little, in comparison,
what may be the rate of duty you impose. It is evident that on the ad
valorem principle, it is the foreigner who virtually fixes the actual
amount of the duty paid. It is the foreigner who, by fixing that value,
virtually legislates for us; and that in a case where his interest
is directly opposed to that of our revenue. I say, therefore, that
independently of all considerations of protection, independently of all
ends or motives but the prevention of those infamous frauds which have
been the disgrace of our custom house――frauds in which the foreigner,
with his double and triple and quadruple invoices, ready to be produced
as circumstances may require, fixes the value of the merchandise
taxed――every consideration of national dignity, justice, and
independence, demands the substitution of home valuation in the place
of foreign. What effect such a change may have in the augmentation
of the revenue I am not prepared to say, because I do not know the
amount; I think the rate may be set down at from twenty to twenty-five
per centum, in addition to the foreign value of imports. I do not
speak with great confidence. If the rate is twenty-five per centum,
then it would add only five per centum to the rate of twenty per
centum established by the compromise act. Of course, if the home be
substituted for the foreign valuation, the augmentation of duties
beyond twenty per centum will be less by that home valuation, whatever
it may be. Without, however, entering into the question of home
valuation, and leaving that subject to be arranged hereafter, I shall
treat the subject as if the present system of foreign valuation were to
continue.
I then return to the inquiry on an importation amounting to
ninety-one millions, how much duty must be imposed in order to raise
a net revenue of twenty-six millions? The question does not admit
of perfect accuracy; the utmost that can be reached is a reasonable
approximation. Suppose every one of the imported articles to be subject
to a duty of thirty per centum, then the gross revenue will amount to
twenty-seven million and three hundred thousand dollars. Deducting the
expenses of collection, which may be stated at one million and six
hundred thousand dollars, it will give twenty-five million and seven
hundred thousand dollars, or three hundred thousand dollars less than
the proposed amount of twenty-six millions.
But I might as well take this opportunity to explain a subject which
is not well understood. It has been supposed, when I propose to fix a
rate of ad valorem duty as the maximum to be allowed, that my meaning
is, that all articles, of every description, are to be carried up to
that point, and fixed at that rate, as on a sort of bed of Procrustes.
But that is not my idea. No doubt certain articles ought to go up to
the maximum――I mean those of prime necessity belonging to the class of
protected articles. There are others, such as jewelry and watches, and
some others of small bulk and great comparative value, and therefore
easily smuggled, and presenting a great temptation to the evasion
of duty, which ought to be subjected to a less rate. There should,
therefore, be a discrimination allowed under the maximum rate according
to the exigency of the respective circumstances of each particular
interest concerned. Since it will require a duty of thirty per centum
on all articles to give the amount of twenty-five million seven hundred
thousand dollars, and since some of them will not bear so high a
duty as thirty per centum, it follows that less than that rate will
certainly not answer the necessary demands of the government, and it
may in some particular cases require a rate somewhat higher than that
in order to raise the proposed sum of twenty-six millions. But as the
reserved fund of two millions for contingencies will not require an
annual revenue for that purpose, should the amount of duties levied
be less than twenty-six millions, or even between twenty-four and
twenty-five millions, the reserved fund may be made up by accumulation,
during successive years, and still leave an amount sufficient to meet
an annual expenditure of twenty-two millions, and two millions for the
public debt.
I now approach the consideration of a very important branch of the
subject in its connection with the compromise act.
I shall not here attempt to go again into the history of that act. I
will only say that, at the time of its passage, it was thought right
that the country should make a fair experiment of its effect; and that,
as the law itself met the approbation of all parts of the country, its
provisions ought not lightly to be departed from; that the principles
of the act should be observed in good faith; and that, if it be
necessary to raise the duties higher than twenty per centum, we ought
to adhere to the principles of the compromise, then, as far as it
should be possible to do. I have been animated, in the propositions I
now offer to the senate, by the same desire that prompted me, whenever
the act has been assailed by its opponents, to stand by it and defend
it.
But it is necessary now to consider what the principles of the
compromise act really are.
The first principle is, that there should be a fixed rate of ad valorem
duty, and discriminations below it.
Second, that the excess of duty beyond twenty per centum should, by a
gradual process, commencing on the thirty-first of December, 1833, be
reduced, so that by the thirtieth of June, 1842, it should be brought
down to twenty per centum.
Third, that after that day, _such duties should be laid_ for the
purpose of raising _such_ revenue as might be necessary for an
economical administration of the government; consequently excluding all
resort to internal taxation, or to the proceeds of the public lands.
For, contemporaneously with the pendency of the compromise act, a bill
was pending for the distribution of those proceeds.
Fourth, that after the thirtieth of June, 1842, all duties should be
paid in ready money, to the exclusion of all credits.
Fifth, that, after the same day, the assessment of the value of all
imports should be made at home and not abroad.
Sixth, that after the same day, a list of articles specified and
enumerated in the act, should be admitted free of duty, for the benefit
of the manufacturing interest.
These are the principles, and all the principles of the compromise act.
An impression has been taken up most erroneously, that the rate of duty
was never to exceed twenty per centum. There is no such limitation in
the act. I admit that, at the time of the passage of the act, a hope
was entertained that a rate of duty not exceeding twenty per centum
would supply an adequate revenue to an economical administration of the
government. Then we were threatened with that overflow of revenue with
which the treasury was subsequently inundated; and the difficulty was
to find articles which should be liberated from duty and thrown into
the free class. Hence, wines, silks, and other luxuries, were rendered
free. But the act, and no part of the act, when fairly interpreted,
limits congress to the iron rule of adhering for ever, and under all
circumstances, to a fixed and unalterable rate of twenty per centum
duty. The first section is in the following words:
“Be it enacted, and so forth, that, from and after the
thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and
thirty-three, in all cases where duties imposed on foreign
imports by the act of the fourteenth day of July, one thousand
eight hundred and thirty-two, entitled ‘an act to alter and amend
the several acts imposing duties on imports,’ or by any other
act, shall exceed twenty per centum on the value thereof, one
tenth part of such excess shall be deducted; from and after the
thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and
thirty-five, another tenth part thereof shall be deducted; from
and after the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight
hundred and thirty-seven, another tenth part thereof shall
be deducted; from and after the thirty-first day of December,
one thousand eight hundred and thirty-nine, another tenth part
thereof shall be deducted; and from and after the thirty-first
day of December, one thousand eight hundred and forty-one, one
half of the residue of such excess shall be deducted; and from
and after the thirtieth day of June, one thousand eight hundred
and forty-two, the other half thereof shall be deducted.”
The provision of that section is nothing more nor less than that the
existing duties should be, by the thirtieth of June, 1842, brought down
to twenty per centum. What then? Were they always to remain at that
rate? The section does not so declare. Not only is this not expected,
and was not so understood, but directly the reverse is asserted, and
was so understood, if the exigencies of the treasury required a higher
rate to provide the revenue necessary to an economical administration
of the government. The third section, which embodies most of the great
principles of the act, is in these words:
‘Section 3. And be it further enacted, that until the thirteenth
day of June, one thousand eight hundred and forty-two, the
duties imposed by existing laws, as modified by this act, shall
remain and continue to be collected. And, from and after the day
last aforesaid, all duties upon imports shall be collected in
ready money; and all credits now allowed by law, in the payment
of duties, shall be, and hereby are, abolished; and such duties
shall be laid for the purpose of raising such revenue as may be
necessary to an economical administration of the government; and,
from and after the day last aforesaid, the duties required to be
paid by law on goods, wares, and merchandise, shall be assessed
upon the value thereof, at the port where the same shall be
entered, under such regulations as may be prescribed by law.’
What is the meaning of this language? Can any thing be more explicit,
or less liable to misconception? It contains two obligations. The first
is, that there shall be an economical administration of the government;
no waste, no extravagance, no squandering of the public money. I admit
this obligation, in its fullest force, in all its length and breadth,
and I trust that my friends, with or without my aid, will fulfil it,
in letter and spirit, with the most perfect fulfilment. But the second
obligation is no less binding and imperative; and that is, that such
duties _shall be laid_ as may be necessary to raise _such_ revenue as
is requisite to an economical administration of the government. The
source of revenue is defined and prescribed――the foreign imports, to
the exclusion of all other sources. The amount, from the nature of
things, could not be specified; but whatever it may be, be it large or
small, allowing us to come below, or requiring that we should go beyond
twenty per centum, that amount is to be raised.
I contend, therefore, with entire confidence, that it is perfectly
consistent with the provisions of the compromise act, to impose duties
to any amount whatever, thirty, forty, or more per centum, subject to
the single condition of an economical administration of the government.
What are the other principles of the act? First, there is the principle
that a fixed ad valorem duty shall prevail and be in force at all times.
For one, I am willing to abide by that principle. There are certain
vague notions afloat as to the utility and necessity of specific duties
and discriminations, which I am persuaded arise from a want of a right
understanding of the subject. We have had the ad valorem principle
practically in force ever since the compromise act was passed; and
there has been no difficulty in administering the duties of the
treasury on that principle.
It was necessary first to ascertain the value of the goods, and then
to impose the duty upon them; and, from the commencement of the act to
this day, the ad valorem principle has been substantially in operation.
Compare the difference between specific and the ad valorem system
of duties, and I maintain that the latter is justly entitled to the
preference. The one principle declares that the duty shall be paid upon
the real value of the article taxed; the specific principle imposes an
equal duty on articles greatly unequal in value. Coffee, for example,
(and it is an article which always suggests itself to my thoughts,) is
one of the articles on which a specific duty has been levied. Now, it
is perfectly well known that the Mocha coffee is worth at least twice
as much as the coffee of St. Domingo or Cuba, yet both pay the same
duty. The tax has no respect to the value, but is arbitrarily levied on
all articles of a specific kind, alike, however various and unequal may
be their values. I say that, in theory, and according to every sound
principle of justice, the ad valorem mode of taxation is entitled to
the preference. There is, I admit, one objection to it; as the value
of an article is a matter subject to opinion, and as opinions will
ever vary, either honestly or fraudulently, there is some difficulty in
preventing frauds. But, with the home valuation proposed by my friend
from Rhode Island, (Mr. Simmons,) the ad valorem system can be adopted
with all practicable safety, and will be liable to those chances only
of fraud, which are inevitable under any and every system.
Again. What has been the fact from the origin of the government until
now? The articles from which the greatest amount of revenue has been
drawn, such as woollens, linens, silks, cottons, worsteds, and a few
others, have all been taxed on the ad valorem principle, and there has
been no difficulty in the operation. I believe, upon the whole, that it
is the best mode. I believe that if we adopt a fixed rate ad valorem,
wherever it can be done, the revenue will be subjected to fewer frauds
than the injustice and frauds incident to specific duties. One of the
most prolific sources of the violation of our revenue laws, has been,
as every body knows, the effort to get in goods of a finer quality
and higher value admitted under the lower rate of duty required for
those of a lower value. The honorable gentleman from New Hampshire,
(Mr. Woodbury,) and the honorable senator from New York, (Mr. Wright,)
both well know this. But if the duty were laid ad valorem there
could be no motive for such an effort, and the fraud, in its present
form, would have no place. In England, as all who have read the able
report made by Mr. Hume, a Scottish member in the house of commons,
must perceive, they seem to be giving up specific duties, and the
tendency in the public mind appears to be instead of having a variety
of specific duties and a variety of ad valorem duties, to have one
permanent fixed rate of duty for all articles. I am willing, I repeat,
to adhere to this great principle, as laid down in the compromise act.
If there be those who suppose that, under the specific form of duty, a
higher degree of protection can be secured than under the other mode,
I would observe that the actual measure of protection does not depend
upon the _form_ but on the _amount_ of the duty which is levied on the
foreign rival article.
Assuming that we are to adhere to this principle, then every one of the
leading principles of the same act can be adhered to and carried fully
out; for I again assert that the idea that duties are always to remain
at precisely twenty per centum, and never to vary from that point, be
the exigencies of government what they may, does not belong to the
language of the act, nor is it required by any one of its provisions.
The next resolution I have proposed to the consideration of the senate,
is this:
‘Resolved, that the provision in the act of the extra session,
for the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands,
requiring the operation of that act to be suspended in the
contingency of a higher rate of duty than twenty per centum,
ought to be repealed.’
Now, according to the calculations I have made, the repeal of the
clause in question, and the recall of the proceeds of the sales of
public lands from the states, even if made, will not dispense with
the necessity of a great increase in the existing rate of taxation.
I have shown that a duty of thirty per centum will not be too much
to furnish the requisite amount of revenue, for a just and economical
administration of the government. And how much of that rate will be
reduced, should you add to the revenue from imports the million and a
half (which was the amount realized the last year,) derived from sales
of the public domain? It will be but the difference between thirty and
about twenty-eight and a half. For, since thirty per centum yields a
revenue of twenty-six millions, one per centum will bring about nine
hundred thousand; and every million of dollars derived from lands will
reduce your taxation on imports only nine hundred thousand; if you
get a million and a half from the lands, it will reduce the taxes only
from thirty to twenty-eight and a half per centum; or if you get three
millions, as some gentlemen insist will be the case, then you will save
taxes in the amount of the difference between thirty per centum and
about twenty-seven per centum. This will be the whole extent of benefit
derived from this land fund, which some senators have supposed would be
so abundant as to relieve us from all necessity of additional taxation
at all. I put it then, to every senator, no matter whether he was
opposed to the land bill or not, whether he is willing, for the sake
of this trifling difference, between thirty and twenty-eight and a half
per centum, or between thirty and twenty-seven per centum, to disturb
a great momentous and perplexing subject of our national policy, which
is now settled, and thereby show such an example of instability in
legislation as will be exhibited by the fact of unsettling so great a
question within less than eight months after it had been fixed, on the
most mature consideration? If gentlemen can make more out of the land
fund than I have here stated it likely to yield, I shall be glad to
hear on what ground they rest their calculations. I say that all the
difference it will produce in the amount of our increased taxation is
the difference between thirty and twenty-eight and a half, or between
thirty and twenty-seven per centum. Will you, I repeat the question,
when it is absolutely and confessedly necessary that more revenue shall
be raised, and the mode in which it may be done is fraught with so
many and so great benefits to the country, as I shall presently show,
will you disturb a great and vexed national question for the sake of
eking out in so trifling a degree, the amount to be raised? But let us
look at the subject in another view. The resources on which government
should depend, for paying the public creditor, and maintaining
inviolate the national faith and credit, ought to be such as to admit
of some certain estimate and calculation. But what possible reliance
can be placed on a fund so fluctuating and variable as that which is
derivable from the sales of the public lands? We have seen it rise to
the extraordinary height of twenty-six millions in one year, and in
less than six years afterwards fall down to the low amount of one
million and a half!
The next resolution affirms a proposition which I hope will receive the
unanimous consent of the senate. It is as follows.
‘Resolved, that it is the duty of government, at all times,
but more especially in a season such as now exists, of general
embarrassment, and pecuniary distress, to abolish all useless
institutions and offices, to curtail all unnecessary expenses,
and to practice rigid economy.’
And the seventh resolution declares,
‘That the contingent expenses of the two houses of congress
ought to be greatly reduced; and the mileage of members of
congress ought to be regulated, and more clearly defined.’
It has appeared to me, that the process of retrenchment of the public
expenses, and reform of existing abuses, ought to begin in an especial
manner, here, with ourselves, in congress itself, where is found one
of the most extravagant of all the branches of the government. We
should begin at home, and encourage the work of retrenchment by our
own example. I have before me a document which exhibits the gradual
progress in the contingent expenses of the two houses of congress, from
1820 to 1840, embracing a period of twenty years, divided into terms
four years apart, and it shows that the amount of the contingent fund
has advanced from eighty-six thousand dollars, which it was in 1824,
to one hundred and twenty-one thousand in 1828, a rate of increase
not greater than was proper, considering the progress of the country;
to one hundred and sixty-five thousand in 1832; to two hundred and
sixty-three thousand, in 1836; and, in 1840, it amounted, under an
administration which charged that in 1824 with extravagance, to the
enormous sum of three hundred and eighty-four thousand, three hundred
and thirty-three dollars! I am really sorry, for the credit of congress,
to be obliged to read a statement exhibiting such shameful, such
profligate waste. And allow me here to say, without any intention of
being unkind to those able and competent officers, the secretary of
the senate, and the clerk[26] of the house of representatives, (not the
present clerk,) that they ought to bear a share of the responsibility,
for the great and sudden growth of this expenditure. How did it arise?
The clerk presents his estimate of the sum that will be necessary,
and the committee of ways and means, being busily occupied in matters
of greater moment, take it without sufficient examination, and insert
it at once on the appropriation bill. But I insist that it should be
cut down to a sum of which members of congress may, with some decency,
speak to their constituents. A salutary reform has been commenced in
the house of representatives, which ought to be followed up here. They
have already stricken one hundred thousand dollars from the contingent
fund for both houses; but they should go much lower. I hope there will
be another item of retrenchment, in fixing a reasonable maximum amount,
to be allowed for stationery furnished to the members of congress. If
this shall be adopted, much will have been done; for this is one of
the most fruitful sources of congressional extravagance. I am told that
the stationery furnished during the twenty-fifth congress averages more
than one hundred dollars per head to each member. Can any man believe
that any such amount as this can be necessary? Is it not an instance of
profligate waste and profusion?
My next resolution is directed to the expenses of the judicial
department of the government.
‘Resolved, that the expenses of the judicial department have, of
late years, been greatly increased, and ought to be diminished.’
In this department, also, there has been a vast augmention of the
expenses, and such a one as calls for a thorough investigation. The
amount of the appropriation for the judicial department has sprung up
from two hundred and nine thousand dollars, which it was in 1824, to
four hundred and seventy-one thousand dollars, at which it stood for
the year 1840. Can any man believe that this has all been fairly done?
that that department actually requires the expenditure every year of
nearly half a million of dollars? I have no doubt that the district
judges and the marshals, who have great control of the expenditure
of the fund, and the clerks, ought to be held responsible for this
enormous increase. Without any intention to indulge in any invidious
distinctions, I think I could name a district in which great abuses
prevail, and the expenditures are four or five times greater than
they are in any other district throughout the country. I hope this
whole matter will be thoroughly investigated, and that some necessary
restraints will be imposed upon this branch of the public service.
I am truly sorry, that in a branch of the government which, for its
purity and uprightness, has ever been distinguished, and which so
well merits the admiration of the whole country, there should have
occurred so discreditable an increase in the expenses of its practical
administration.
The next resolution asserts,
‘That the diplomatic relations of the United States with foreign
powers have been unnecessarily extended during the last twelve
years, and ought to be reduced.’
I will not dwell long on this subject. I must remark, however,
that since the days of Mr. Adams’s administration, the number of
foreign ministers, of the first grade, has nearly doubled, and that
of ministers of the second grade has nearly tripled. Why, we have
ministers abroad, who are seeking for the governments to which they are
accredited, and the governments are not to be found! We have ministers
at Constantinople and Vienna, and for what? We have an unreciprocated
mission to Naples, and for what? There was, at the last session, an
attempt to abolish this appointment, but it unfortunately failed. One
would think, that, in such a one-sided, unreciprocated diplomacy, if
a regard to economy did not prompt us to discontinue the relation,
national pride would. In like manner, we might look round the coasts
of Europe, and of this continent, and find mission after mission which
there seems to be no earthly utility in retaining. But I forbear.
On the subject of mileage, I hope there may be an effort to equalize it
justly, and render it uniform, and that the same allowance will be made
for the same distance travelled, whether by land, by water, or by steam
route, or whether the distance be ascertained by horizontal or surface
measurement. I think the former the best mode, because it limits us to
a single and simple inquiry, and leaves no open door for abuses. I hope,
therefore, that we shall adopt it.
The next resolution of the series reads thus:
‘Resolved, that the franking privilege ought to be further
restricted, the abusive uses of it restrained and punished, the
postage on letters reduced, the mode of estimating distances
more clearly defined and prescribed, and a small addition to
postage made on books, pamphlets, and packages transmitted by
the mail, to be graduated and increased according to their
respective weights.’
The franking privilege has been most direfully abused. We have
already reached a point of abuse, not to say corruption, though the
government has been in operation but about fifty years, which it has
taken Great Britain centuries to attain. Blank envelopes, I have heard
it said, ready franked, have been enclosed to individuals at a distance,
who openly boasted that their correspondence is free of charge. The
limitation as to the weight is now extended, I believe, to two ounces.
But what of that, if a man may send under his frank a thousand of
these two-ounce packages? The limitation should be to the total weight
included in any single mail, whether the packages be few or many. The
report of the post-master general, at a former session, states the
astounding fact, that, of the whole amount transported in the mails,
_ninety-five per centum_ goes free of all duty, and letters of business
and private correspondence have to defray the expense of the whole.
It is monstrous, and calls loudly for some provision to equalize
the charge. The present postage on letters is enormously high, in
proportion to the other business of the country. If you will refuse to
carry those packages, which are now transmitted by mail simply because
in that mode they can travel free of cost, you will greatly relieve
the business interests of the country, which now bear nearly the whole
burden for all the rest. This it is your duty to do. Let us throw, at
least, a fair portion of the burden on those who receive, at present,
the whole of the benefit. Again. The law is very loose and uncertain as
to the estimation of distances. Since the introduction of steam-travel,
the distance travelled has, in many cases, been increased, while the
time consumed has been shortened. Take, as an illustration, a case near
at hand. The nearest distance from here to Frederick city, in Maryland,
is forty-four miles; but, if you go hence to the depot on the Baltimore
road, and thence take the train to Frederick, you arrive sooner, but
the distance is increased to one hundred miles. Now, as letters are
charged according to the miles travelled, I hold it very wrong to
subject a letter to this more than double charge, in consequence of
adopting a longer route in distance, though a shorter in time. Such
cases ought to be provided against by specific rules.