No State shall without the consent of the Congress lay any imposts
or duties on 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 high
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 can not 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 can not 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 February 28, 1795, and March 3, 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 can not 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 can not 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," etc., 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 vanish 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 can not
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 preservation.
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 can not 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 can not 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 can not 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 100 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, can not be accepted. All other claims of citizens of the United
States against Spain, or the 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 well-being
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 toward the Empire of China has produced the most satisfactory
results. The treaty of Tien-tsin 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, and 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 of 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 of 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 seaports 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 toward 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 comilatus_ 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 antislavery 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 can not 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 intrenched 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 to $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 can not 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 can not 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 suggestions 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 can not 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
be 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.