EXPENSES OF THE GOVERNMENT.
Economy in the government expenditures was a cardinal feature in
the democratic policy, and every increase of expense was closely
scrutinized by them, and brought to the test of the clearest
necessity. Some increase was incident to the growing condition
of the country; but every item beyond the exigencies of that
growth was subjected to severe investigation and determined
opposition. In the execution of this policy the expenses proper
of the government--those incident to working its machinery--were,
immediately after my entrance into the Senate, and after the army
and other reductions of 1820 and '21 had taken effect--just about
eight millions of dollars. The same expenditure up to the beginning
of the year 1832--a period of about ten years--had risen to thirteen
and a half millions: and, adverting to this increase in some current
debate, and with a view to fix attention upon the growing evil, I
stated to the Senate that these expenses had nearly doubled since
I had been a member of the Senate. This statement drew a reply
from the veteran chairman of the Senate's committee on finance
(General Smith, of Maryland), in opposition to my statement; which,
of course, drew further remarks from me. Both sets of remarks are
valuable at this day--instructive in the picture they present
between 1822--1832--and 1850. Gen. Smith's estimate of about ten
millions instead of eight--though predicated on the wrong basis of
beginning to count before the expenses of the army reduction had
taken effect, and counting in the purchase of Florida, and some
other items of a nature foreign to the support of government--even
his estimate presents a startling point of comparison with the same
expenditure of the present day; and calls for the revival of that
spirit of economy which distinguished the democracy in the earlier
periods of the government. Some passages from the speech of each
senator (General Smith and Mr. Benton) will present this brief, but
important inquiry, in its proper point of view. Gen. Smith said:
"I will now come, Mr. President, to my principal object. It is
the assertion, 'that, since the year 1821, the expenses of the
government had nearly doubled;' and I trust I shall be able to
show that the senator from Missouri [Mr. Benton] had been under
some misapprehension. The Senate are aware of the effect which
such an assertion, coming from such high authority, must have
upon the public mind. It certainly had its effect even upon this
enlightened body. I mentioned to an honorable senator a few days
since, that the average ordinary expenditure of the government
for the last nine years did not exceed the sum of twelve and a
half millions. But, said the senator, the expenditures have
greatly increased during that period. I told him I thought they
had not; and I now proceed to prove, that, with the exception of
four years, viz., 1821, 1822, 1823, and 1824, the expenditures
of the government have not increased. I shall endeavor to show
the causes of the reduction of expenses during those years, and
that they afford no criteria by which to judge of the necessary
expenses of government, and that they are exceptions to the
general rate of expenditures, arising from particular causes.
But even they exhibit an expenditure far above the one half of
the present annual ordinary expenses.
"In the year 1822, which was the period when the senator from
Missouri [Mr. Benton] took his seat in the Senate, the ordinary
expenses of the government amounted to the sum of $9,827,643.
The expenses of the year 1823, amounted to $9,784,154. I
proceed, Mr. President, to show the cause which thus reduced
the ordinary expenses during these years. I speak in the
presence of gentlemen, some of whom were then in the House of
Representatives, and will correct me if my recollection should
lead me into error. During the session of the year 1819-'20 the
President asked a loan, I think, of five millions, to defray the
expenses of the government, which he had deemed necessary, and
for which estimates had, as usual, been laid before Congress.
A loan of three millions only was granted; and, in the next
session, another loan of, I think, seven millions was asked, in
order to enable the Executive to meet the amount of expenses
estimated for, as necessary for the year 1821. A loan of five
millions was granted, and in the succeeding year another loan of
five hundred thousand dollars was asked, and refused. Congress
were dissatisfied that loans should be required in time of
profound peace, to meet the common expenses of the nation; and
they refused to grant the amount asked for in the estimates,
although this amount would have been granted if there had been
money in the treasury to meet them, without resorting to loans.
The Committee of Ways and Means (and it was supported by the
House) lessened some of the items estimated for, and refused
others. No item, except such as was indispensably necessary,
was granted. By the adoption of this course, the expenditures
were reduced, in 1821, to $10,723,479, and to the sums already
mentioned for the two years, 1822 and 1823, and the current
expenses of 1824. $10,330,144. The consequence was, that the
treasury was restored to a sound state, so that Congress was
enabled, in the year 1825, to appropriate the full amount of the
estimate. The expenditures of 1824 amounted to $15,330,144. This
large expenditure is to be attributed to the payment made to
Spain in that year, of $5,000,000 for the purchase of Florida.
I entertained doubts whether I ought to include this sum in the
expenditures; but, on full consideration, I deemed it proper to
include it. It may be said that it was an extraordinary payment,
and such as could not again occur. So is the payment on
account of awards under the Treaty of Ghent, in 1827 and 1828,
amounting to $1,188,716. Of the same character, too, are the
payments made for the purchase of lands from the Indians; for
the removal of the Indians; for payments to the several States
for moneys advanced during the late war; and a variety of other
extraordinary charges on the treasury."
The error of this statement was in the basis of the calculation,
and in the inclusion of items which did not belong to the expenses
proper of the government, and in beginning to count before the year
of reduction--the whole of which, in a period of ten years made
an excess of twenty-two millions above the ordinary expenses. I
answered thus:
"Mr. Benton rose in reply to the senator from Maryland. Mr. B.
said that a remark of his, in a former debate, seemed to have
been the occasion of the elaborate financial statements which
the senator from Maryland had just gone through. Mr. B. said he
had made the remark, in debate; it was a general one, and not to
be treated as an account stated by an accounting officer. His
remark was, that the public expenditure had nearly doubled since
he had been a member of the Senate. Neither the words used, nor
the mode of the expression, implied the accuracy of an account;
it was a remark to signify a great and inordinate increase in
a comparatively short time. He had not come to the Senate this
day with the least expectation of being called to justify that
remark, or to hear a long arraignment of it argued; but he was
ready at all times to justify, and he would quickly do it. Mr.
B. said that when he made the remark, he had no statement of
accounts in his eye, but he had two great and broad facts before
him, which all the figures and calculations upon earth, and
all the compound and comparative statements of arithmeticians,
could not shake or alter; which were--first, that when he came
into the Senate the machinery of this government was worked
for between eight and nine millions of dollars; and, secondly,
the actual payments for the last year, in the President's
message, were about fourteen millions and three-quarters. The
sum estimated for the future expenditures, by the Secretary of
the Treasury, was thirteen and a half millions; but fifteen
millions were recommended by him to be levied to meet increased
expenditures. Mr. B. said these were two great facts which he
had in his eye, and which he would justify. He would produce no
proofs as to the second of his facts, because the President's
message and the Secretary's report were so recently sent in, and
so universally reprinted, that every person could recollect,
or turn to their contents, and verify his statement upon their
own examination or recollection. He would verify his first
statement only by proofs, and for that purpose would refer to
the detailed statements of the public expenditures, compiled
by Van Zandt and Watterston, and for which he had just sent to
the room of the Secretary of the Senate. Mr. B. would take the
years 1822-'3; for he was not simple enough to take the years
before the reduction of the army, when he was looking for the
lowest expenditure. Four thousand men were disbanded, and had
remained disbanded ever since; they were disbanded since he came
into the Senate; he would therefore date from that reduction.
This would bring him to the years 1822-'3, when you, sir (the
Vice-President), was Secretary of War. What was the whole
expenditure of the government for each of those years? It stood
thus:
1822, $17,676,592 63
1823, 15,314,171 00
"These two sums include every head of expenditure--they include
public debt, revolutionary and invalid pensions; three heads of
temporary expenditure. The payments on account of the public
debt in those two years, were--
In 1822, $7,848,919 12
1823, 5,530,016 41
"Deduct these two sums from the total expenditure of the years
to which they refer, and you will have--
For 1822, $9,727,673 41
1823, 9,784,155 59
"The pensions for those years were--
_Revolutionary._ _Invalid._ _Aggregate._
1822, $1,642,590 94 $305,608 46 $1,947,199 40
1823, 1,449,097 04 331,491 48 1,730,588 52
"Now, deduct these pensions from the years to which they refer,
and you will have just about $8,000,000 as the expense of
working the machinery of government at the period which I had
in my eye. But the pensions have not yet totally ceased; they
are much diminished since 1822, 1823, and in a few years must
cease. The revolutionary pensioners must now average seventy
years of age; their stipends will soon cease. I hold myself well
justified, then, in saying, as I did, that the expenditures of
the government have nearly doubled in my time. The remark had
no reference to administrations. There was nothing comparative
in it; nothing intended to put up, or put down, any body. The
burdens of the people is the only thing I wish to put down. My
service in the Senate has extended under three administrations,
and my periods of calculation extend to all three. My opinion
now is, that the machinery of this government, after the payment
of the public debt, should be worked for ten millions or less,
and two millions more for extraordinaries; in all twelve
millions; but this is a point for future discussion. My present
object is to show a great increase in a short time; and to show
that, not to affect individuals, but to show the necessity of
practising what we all profess--economy. I am against keeping
up a revenue, after the debt and pensions are paid, as large,
or nearly as large, as the expenditure was in 1822, 1823, with
these items included. I am for throwing down my load, when I get
to the end of my journey. I am for throwing off the burden of
the debt, when I get to the end of the debt. The burden of the
debt is the taxes levied on account of it. I am for abolishing
these taxes; and this is the great question upon which parties
now go to trial before the American people. One word more, and I
am done for the present. The senator for Maryland, to make up a
goodly average for 1822, and 1823, adds the expenditure of 1824,
which includes, besides sixteen millions and a half for the
public debt, and a million and a half for pensions, the sum of
five millions for the purchase of Florida. Sir, he must deduct
twenty-two millions from that computation; and that deduction
will bring his average for those years to agree very closely
with my statement."
It was something at the time this inquiry took place to know which
was right--General Smith, or myself. Two millions, more or less,
per annum in the public expenditures, was then something--a thing
to be talked about, and accounted for, among the economical men of
that day. It seems to be nothing now, when the increases are many
millions per annum--when personal and job legislation have become
the frequent practice--when contracts are legislated to adventurers
and speculators--when the halls of Congress have come to be
considered the proper place to lay the foundations, or to repair the
dilapidations of millionary fortunes: and when the public fisc, and
the national domain may consider themselves fortunate sometimes in
getting off with a loss of two millions in a single operation.