Contents    Prev    Next    Last

President[ James Buchanan

         Date[ December 3, 1860

Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives:

Throughout the year since our last meeting the country has been eminently

prosperous in all its material interests. The general health has been

excellent, our harvests have been abundant, and plenty smiles throughout

the laud. Our commerce and manufactures have been prosecuted with energy

and industry, and have yielded fair and ample returns. In short, no nation

in the tide of time has ever presented a spectacle of greater material

prosperity than we have done until within a very recent period.

Why is it, then, that discontent now so extensively prevails, and the Union

of the States, which is the source of all these blessings, is threatened

with destruction?

The long-continued and intemperate interference of the Northern people with

the question of slavery in the Southern States has at length produced its

natural effects. The different sections of the Union are now arrayed

against each other, and the time has arrived, so much dreaded by the Father

of his Country, when hostile geographical parties have been formed.

I have long foreseen and often forewarned my countrymen of the now

impending danger. This does not proceed solely from the claim on the part

of Congress or the Territorial legislatures to exclude slavery from the

Territories, nor from the efforts of different States to defeat the

execution of the fugitive-slave law. All or any of these evils might have

been endured by the South without danger to the Union (as others have been)

in the hope that time and reflection might apply the remedy. The immediate

peril arises not so much from these causes as from the fact that the

incessant and violent agitation of the slavery question throughout the

North for the last quarter of a century has at length produced its malign

influence on the slaves and inspired them with vague notions of freedom.

Hence a sense of security no longer exists around the family altar. This

feeling of peace at home has given place to apprehensions of servile

insurrections. Many a matron throughout the South retires at night in dread

of what may befall herself and children before the morning. Should this

apprehension of domestic danger, whether real or imaginary, extend and

intensify itself until it shall pervade the masses of the Southern people,

then disunion will become inevitable. Self-preservation is the first law of

nature, and has been implanted in the heart of man by his Creator for the

wisest purpose; and no political union, however fraught with blessings and

benefits in all other respects, can long continue if the necessary

consequence be to render the homes and the firesides of nearly half the

parties to it habitually and hopelessly insecure. Sooner or later the bonds

of such a union must be severed. It is my conviction that this fatal period

has not yet arrived, and my prayer to God is that He would preserve the

Constitution and the Union throughout all generations.

But let us take warning in time and remove the cause of danger. It can not

be denied that for five and twenty years the agitation at the North against

slavery has been incessant. In 1835 pictorial handbills and inflammatory

appeals were circulated extensively throughout the South of a character to

excite the passions of the slaves, and, in the language of General Jackson,

"to stimulate them to insurrection and produce all the horrors of a servile

war." This agitation has ever since been continued by the public press, by

the proceedings of State and county conventions and by abolition sermons

and lectures. The time of Congress has been occupied in violent speeches on

this never-ending subject, and appeals, in pamphlet and other forms,

indorsed by distinguished names, have been sent forth from this central

point and spread broadcast over the Union.

How easy would it be for the American people to settle the slavery question

forever and to restore peace and harmony to this distracted country! They,

and they alone, can do it. All that is necessary to accomplish the object,

and all for which the slave States have ever contended, is to be let alone

and permitted to manage their domestic institutions in their own way. As

sovereign States, they, and they alone, are responsible before God and the

world for the slavery existing among them. For this the people of the North

are not more responsible and have no more fight to interfere than with

similar institutions in Russia or in Brazil.

Upon their good sense and patriotic forbearance I confess I still greatly

rely. Without their aid it is beyond the power of any President, no matter

what may be his own political proclivities, to restore peace and harmony

among the States. Wisely limited and restrained as is his power under our

Constitution and laws, he alone can accomplish but little for good or for

evil on such a momentous question.

And this brings me to observe that the election of any one of our

fellow-citizens to the office of President does not of itself afford just

cause for dissolving the Union. This is more especially true if his

election has been effected by a mere plurality, and not a majority of the

people, and has resulted from transient and temporary causes, which may

probably never again occur. In order to justify a resort to revolutionary

resistance, the Federal Government must be guilty of "a deliberate,

palpable, and dangerous exercise" of powers not granted by the

Constitution.

The late Presidential election, however, has been held in strict conformity

with its express provisions. How, then, can the result justify a revolution

to destroy this very Constitution? Reason, justice, a regard for the

Constitution, all require that we shall wait for some overt and dangerous

act on the part of the President elect before resorting to such a remedy.

It is said, however, that the antecedents of the President-elect have been

sufficient to justify the fears of the South that he will attempt to invade

their constitutional rights. But are such apprehensions of contingent

danger in the future sufficient to justify the immediate destruction of the

noblest system of government ever devised by mortals? From the very nature

of his office and its high responsibilities he must necessarily be

conservative. The stern duty of administering the vast and complicated

concerns of this Government affords in itself a guaranty that he will not

attempt any violation of a clear constitutional right.

After all, he is no more than the chief executive officer of the

Government. His province is not to make but to execute the laws. And it is

a remarkable fact in our history that, notwithstanding the repeated efforts

of the antislavery party, no single act has ever passed Congress, unless we

may possibly except the Missouri compromise, impairing in the slightest

degree the rights of the South to their property in slaves; and it may also

be observed, judging from present indications, that no probability exists

of the passage of such an act by a majority of both Houses, either in the

present or the next Congress. Surely under these circumstances we ought to

be restrained from present action by the precept of Him who spake as man

never spoke, that "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." The day of

evil may never come unless we shall rashly bring it upon ourselves.

It is alleged as one cause for immediate secession that the Southern States

are denied equal rights with the other States in the common Territories.

But by what authority are these denied? Not by Congress, which has never

passed, and I believe never will pass, any act to exclude slavery from

these Territories; and certainly not by the Supreme Court, which has

solemnly decided that slaves are property, and, like all other property,

their owners have a right to take them into the common Territories and hold

them there under the protection of the Constitution.

So far then, as Congress is concerned, the objection is not to anything

they have already done, but to what they may do hereafter. It will surely

be admitted that this apprehension of future danger is no good reason for

an immediate dissolution of the Union. It is true that the Territorial

legislature of Kansas, on the 23d February, 1860, passed in great haste an

act over the veto of the governor declaring that slavery "is and shall be

forever prohibited in this Territory." Such an act, however, plainly

violating the rights of property secured by the Constitution, will surely

be declared void by the judiciary whenever it shall be presented in a legal

form.

Only three days after my inauguration the Supreme Court of the United

States solemnly adjudged that this power did not exist in a Territorial

legislature. Yet such has been the factious temper of the times that the

correctness of this decision has been extensively impugned before the

people, and the question has given rise to angry political conflicts

throughout the country. Those who have appealed from this judgment of our

highest constitutional tribunal to popular assemblies would, if they could,

invest a Territorial legislature with power to annul the sacred rights of

property. This power Congress is expressly forbidden by the Federal

Constitution to exercise. Every State legislature in the Union is forbidden

by its own constitution to exercise it. It can not be exercised in any

State except by the people in their highest sovereign capacity, when

framing or amending their State constitution. In like manner it can only be

exercised by the people of a Territory represented in a convention of

delegates for the purpose of framing a constitution preparatory to

admission as a State into the Union. Then, and not until then, are they

invested with power to decide the question whether slavery shall or shall

not exist within their limits. This is an act of sovereign authority, and

not of subordinate Territorial legislation. Were it otherwise, then indeed

would the equality of the States in the Territories be destroyed, and the

rights of property in slaves would depend not upon the guaranties of the

Constitution, but upon the shifting majorities of an irresponsible

Territorial legislature. Such a doctrine, from its intrinsic unsoundness,

can not long influence any considerable portion of our people, much less

can it afford a good reason for a dissolution of the Union.

The most palpable violations of constitutional duty which have yet been

committed consist in the acts of different State legislatures to defeat the

execution of the fugitive-slave law. It ought to be remembered, however,

that for these acts neither Congress nor any President can justly be held

responsible. Having been passed in violation of the Federal Constitution,

they are therefore null and void. All the courts, both State and national,

before whom the question has arisen have from the beginning declared the

fugitive-slave law to be constitutional. The single exception is that of a

State court in Wisconsin, and this has not only been reversed by the proper

appellate tribunal, but has met with such universal reprobation that there

can be no danger from it as a precedent. The validity of this law has been

established over and over again by the Supreme Court of the United States

with perfect unanimity. It is rounded upon an express provision of the

Constitution, requiring that fugitive slaves who escape from service in one

State to another shall be "delivered up" to their masters. Without this

provision it is a well-known historical fact that the Constitution itself

could never have been adopted by the Convention. In one form or other,

under the acts of 1793 and 1850, both being substantially the same, the

fugitive-slave law has been the law of the land from the days of Washington

until the present moment. Here, then, a clear case is presented in which it

will be the duty of the next President, as it has been my own, to act with

vigor in executing this supreme law against the conflicting enactments of

State legislatures. Should he fail in the performance of this high duty, he

will then have manifested a disregard of the Constitution and laws, to the

great injury of the people of nearly one-half of the States of the Union.

But are we to presume in advance that he will thus violate his duty? This

would be at war with every principle of justice and of Christian charity.

Let us wait for the overt act. The fugitive-slave law has been carried into

execution in every contested case since the commencement of the present

Administration, though Often, it is to be regretted, with great loss and

inconvenience to the master and with considerable expense to the

Government. Let us trust that the State legislatures will repeal their

unconstitutional and obnoxious enactments. Unless this shall be done

without unnecessary delay, it is impossible for any human power to save the

Union.

The Southern States, standing on the basis of the Constitution, have right

to demand this act of justice from the States of the North. Should it be

refused, then the Constitution, to which all the States are parties, will

have been willfully violated by one portion of them in a provision

essential to the domestic security and happiness of the remainder. In that

event the injured States, after having first used all peaceful and

constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary

resistance to the Government of the Union.

I have purposely confined my remarks to revolutionary resistance, because

it has been claimed within the last few years that any State, whenever this

shall be its sovereign will and pleasure, may secede from the Union in

accordance with the Constitution and without any violation of the

constitutional rights of the other members of the Confederacy; that as each

became parties to the Union by the vote of its own people assembled in

convention, so any one of them may retire from the Union in a similar

manner by the vote of such a convention.

In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the

principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of

States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties.

If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and

dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States.

In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many

petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union

without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to

such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into

fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil,

privation, and blood to establish.

Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the history as well as the

character of the Federal Constitution. After it was framed with the

greatest deliberation and care it was submitted to conventions of the

people of the several States for ratification. Its provisions were

discussed at length in these bodies, composed of the first men of the

country. Its opponents contended that it conferred powers upon the Federal

Government dangerous to the rights of the States, whilst its advocates

maintained that under a fair construction of the instrument there was no

foundation for such apprehensions. In that mighty struggle between the

first intellects of this or any other country it never occurred to any

individual, either among its opponents or advocates, to assert or even to

intimate that their efforts were all vain labor, because the moment that

any State felt herself aggrieved she might secede from the Union. What a

crushing argument would this have proved against those who dreaded that the

rights of the States would be endangered by the Constitution! The truth is

that it was not until many years after the origin of the Federal Government

that such a proposition was first advanced. It was then met and refuted by

the conclusive arguments of General Jackson, who in his message of the 16th

of January, 1833, transmitting the nullifying ordinance of South Carolina

to Congress, employs the following language:

The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at will and

without the consent of the other States from their most solemn obligations,

and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing this

Union, can not be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly

repugnant both to the principles upon which the General Government is

constituted and to the objects which it is expressly formed to attain.

It is not pretended that any clause in the Constitution gives countenance

to such a theory. It is altogether rounded upon inference; not from any

language contained in the instrument itself, but from the sovereign

character of the several States by which it was ratified. But is it beyond

the power of a State, like an individual, to yield a portion of its

sovereign rights to secure the remainder? In the language of Mr. Madison,

who has been called the father of the Constitution--

It was formed by the States; that is, by the people in each of the States

acting in their highest sovereign capacity, and formed, consequently, by

the same authority which formed the State constitutions. Nor is the

Government of the United States, created by the Constitution, less a

government, in the strict sense of the term, within the sphere of its

powers than the governments created by the constitutions of the States are

within their several spheres. It is, like them, organized into legislative,

executive, and judiciary departments. It operates, like them directly on

persons and things, and, like them, it has at command a physical force for

executing the powers committed to it.

It was intended to be perpetual, and not to be annulled at the pleasure of

any one of the contracting parties. The old Articles of Confederation were

entitled "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between the

States," and by the thirteenth article it is expressly declared that "the

articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State,

and the Union shall be perpetual." The preamble to the Constitution of the

United States, having express reference to the Articles of Confederation,

recites that it was established "in order to form a more perfect union."

And yet it is contended that this "more perfect union" does not include the

essential attribute of perpetuity.

But that the Union was designed to be perpetual appears conclusively from

the nature and extent of the powers conferred by the Constitution on the

Federal Government. These powers embrace the very highest attributes of

national sovereignty. They place both the sword and the purse under its

control. Congress has power to make war and to make peace, to raise and

support armies and navies, and to conclude treaties with foreign

governments. It is invested with the power to coin money and to regulate

the value thereof, and to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among

the several States. It is not necessary to enumerate the other high powers

which have been conferred upon the Federal Government. In order to carry

the enumerated powers into effect, Congress possesses the exclusive right

to lay and collect duties on imports, and, in common with the States, to

lay and collect all other taxes.

But the Constitution has not only conferred these high powers upon

Congress, but it has adopted effectual means to restrain the States from

interfering with their exercise. For that purpose it has in strong

prohibitory language expressly declared that--

No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant

letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make

anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any

bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of

contracts. Moreover--

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

beatings. 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 rounded 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 offending 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 Senor 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 comitatus in the execution of

civil and criminal process. Still, the troubles in Kansas could not have

been permanently settled without an election by the people.

The ballot box is the surest arbiter of disputes among freemen. Under this

conviction every proper effort was employed to induce the hostile parties

to vote at the election of delegates to frame a State constitution, and

afterwards at the election to decide whether Kansas should be a slave or

free State.

The insurgent party refused to vote at either, lest this might be

considered a recognition on their part of the Territorial government

established by Congress. A better spirit, however, seemed soon after to

prevail, and the two parties met face to face at the third election, held

on the first Monday of January, 1858, for members of the legislature and

State officers under the Lecompton constitution. The result was the triumph

of the 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 hand 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 rounded 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.

	Contents    Prev    Next    Last