PRESIDENT JAMES BUCHANAN
STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS
Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives:
In obedience to the command of the Constitution, it has now become my
duty "to give to Congress information of the state of the Union and recommend
to their consideration such measures" as I judge to be "necessary and expedient."
But first and above all, our thanks are due to Almighty God for the
numerous benefits which He has bestowed upon this people, and our united
prayers ought to ascend to Him that He would continue to bless our great
Republic in time to come as He has blessed it in time past. Since the adjournment
of the last Congress our constituents have enjoyed an unusual degree of
health. The earth has yielded her fruits abundantly and has bountifully
rewarded the toil of the husbandman. Our great staples have commanded high
prices, and up till within a brief period our manufacturing, mineral, and
mechanical occupations have largely partaken of the general prosperity.
We have possessed all the elements of material wealth in rich abundance,
and yet, notwithstanding all these advantages, our country in its monetary
interests is at the present moment in a deplorable condition. In the midst
of unsurpassed plenty in all the productions of agriculture and in all
the elements of national wealth, we find our manufactures suspended, our
public works retarded, our private enterprises of different kinds abandoned,
and thousands of useful laborers thrown out of employment and reduced to
want. The revenue of the Government, which is chiefly derived from duties
on imports from abroad, has been greatly reduced, whilst the appropriations
made by Congress at its last session for the current fiscal year are very
large in amount.
Under these circumstances a loan may be required before the close of
your present session; but this, although deeply to be regretted, would
prove to be only a slight misfortune when compared with the suffering and
distress prevailing among the people. With this the Government can not
fail deeply to sympathize, though it may be without the power to extend
It is our duty to inquire what has produced such unfortunate results
and whether their recurrence can be prevented. In all former revulsions
the blame might have been fairly attributed to a variety of cooperating
causes, but not so upon the present occasion. It is apparent that our existing
misfortunes have proceeded solely from our extravagant and vicious system
of paper currency and bank credits, exciting the people to wild speculations
and gambling in stocks. These revulsions must continue to recur at successive
intervals so long as the amount of the paper currency and bank loans and
discounts of the country shall be left to the discretion of 1,400 irresponsible
banking institutions, which from the very law of their nature will consult
the interest of their stockholders rather than the public welfare.
The framers of the Constitution, when they gave to Congress the power
"to coin money and to regulate the value thereof" and prohibited the States
from coining money, emitting bills of credit, or making anything but gold
and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, supposed they had protected
the people against the evils of an excessive and irredeemable paper currency.
They are not responsible for the existing anomaly that a Government endowed
with the sovereign attribute of coining money and regulating the value
thereof should have no power to prevent others from driving this coin out
of the country and filling up the channels of circulation with paper which
does not represent gold and silver.
It is one of the highest and most responsible duties of Government to
insure to the people a sound circulating medium, the amount of which ought
to be adapted with the utmost possible wisdom and skill to the wants of
internal trade and foreign exchanges. If this be either greatly above or
greatly below the proper standard, the marketable value of every man's
property is increased or diminished in the same proportion, and injustice
to individuals as well as incalculable evils to the community are the consequence.
Unfortunately, under the construction of the Federal Constitution which
has now prevailed too long to be changed this important and delicate duty
has been dissevered from the coining power and virtually transferred to
more than 1,400 State banks acting independently of each other and regulating
their paper issues almost exclusively by a regard to the present interest
of their stockholders. Exercising the sovereign power of providing a paper
currency instead of coin for the country, the first duty which these banks
owe to the public is to keep
in their vaults a sufficient amount of gold and silver to insure the
convertibility of their notes into coin at all times and under all circumstances.
No bank ought ever to be chartered without such restrictions on its business
as to secure this result. All other restrictions are comparatively vain.
This is the only true touchstone, the only efficient regulator of a paper
currency--the only one which can guard the public against overissues and
bank suspensions. As a collateral and eventual security, it is doubtless
wise, and in all cases ought to be required, that banks shall hold an amount
of United States or State securities equal to their notes in circulation
and pledged for their redemption. This, however, furnishes no adequate
security against overissue. On the contrary, it may be perverted to inflate
the currency. Indeed, it is possible by this means to convert all the debts
of the United States and State Governments into bank notes, without reference
to the specie required to redeem them. However valuable these securities
may be in themselves, they can not be converted into gold and silver at
the moment of pressure, as our experience teaches, in sufficient time to
prevent bank suspensions and the depreciation of bank notes. In England,
which is to a considerable extent a paper-money country, though vastly
behind our own in this respect, it was deemed advisable, anterior to the
act of Parliament of 1844, which wisely separated the issue of notes from
the banking department, for the Bank of England always to keep on hand
gold and silver equal to one-third of its combined circulation and deposits.
If this proportion was no more than sufficient to secure the convertibility
of its notes with the whole of Great Britain and to some extent the continent
of Europe as a field for its circulation, rendering it almost impossible
that a sudden and immediate run to a dangerous amount should be made upon
it, the same proportion would certainly be insufficient under our banking
system. Each of our 1,400 banks has but a limited circumference for its
circulation, and in the course of a very few days the depositors and note
holders might demand from such a bank a sufficient amount in specie to
compel it to suspend, even although it had coin in its vaults equal to
one-third of its immediate liabilities. And yet I am not aware, with the
exception of the banks of Louisiana, that any State bank throughout the
Union has been required by its charter to keep this or any other proportion
of gold and silver compared with the amount of its combined circulation
and deposits. What has been the consequence? In a recent report made by
the Treasury Department on the condition of the banks throughout the different
States, according to returns dated nearest to January, 1857, the aggregate
amount of actual specie in their vaults is $58,349,838, of their circulation
$214,778,822, and of their deposits $230,351,352. Thus it appears that
these banks in the aggregate have considerably less than one dollar in
seven of gold and silver compared with their circulation and deposits.
It was palpable, therefore, that the very first pressure must drive them
to suspension and deprive the people of a convertible currency, with all
its disastrous consequences. It is truly wonderful that they should have
so long continued to preserve their credit when a demand for the payment
of one-seventh of their immediate liabilities would have driven them into
insolvency. And this is the condition of the banks, notwithstanding that
four hundred millions of gold from California have flowed in upon us within
the last eight years, and the tide still continues to flow. Indeed, such
has been the extravagance of bank credits that the banks now hold a considerably
less amount of specie, either in proportion to their capital or to their
circulation and deposits combined, than they did before the discovery of
gold in California. Whilst in the year 1848 their specie in proportion
to their capital was more than equal to one dollar for four and a half,
in 1857 it does not amount to one dollar for every six dollars and thirty-three
cents of their capital. In the year 1848 the specie was equal within a
very small fraction to one dollar in five of their circulation and deposits;
in 1857 it is not equal to one dollar in seven and a half of their circulation
From this statement it is easy to account for our financial history
for the last forty years. It has been a history of extravagant expansions
in the business of the country, followed by ruinous contractions. At successive
intervals the best and most enterprising men have been tempted to their
ruin by excessive bank loans of mere paper credit, exciting them to extravagant
importations of foreign goods, wild speculations, and ruinous and demoralizing
stock gambling. When the crisis arrives, as arrive it must, the banks can
extend no relief to the people. In a vain struggle to redeem their liabilities
in specie they are compelled to contract their loans and their issues,
and at last, in the hour of distress, when their assistance is most needed,
they and their debtors together sink into insolvency.
It is this paper system of extravagant expansion, raising the nominal
price of every article far beyond its real value when compared with the
cost of similar articles in countries whose circulation is wisely regulated,
which has prevented us from competing in our own markets with foreign manufacturers,
has produced extravagant importations, and has counteracted the effect
of the large incidental protection afforded to our domestic manufactures
by the present revenue tariff. But for this the branches of our manufactures
composed of raw materials, the production of our own country--such as cotton,
iron, and woolen fabrics--would not only have acquired almost exclusive
possession of the home market, but would have created for themselves a
foreign market throughout the world.
Deplorable, however, as may be our present financial condition, we may
yet indulge in bright hopes for the future. No other nation has ever existed
which could have endured such violent expansions and contractions of paper
credits without lasting injury; yet the buoyancy of youth, the energies
of our population, and the spirit which never quails before difficulties
will enable us soon to recover from our present financial embarrassments,
and may even occasion us speedily to forget the lesson which they have
taught. In the meantime it is the duty of the Government, by all proper
means within its power, to aid in alleviating the sufferings of the people
occasioned by the suspension of the banks and to provide against a recurrence
of the same calamity. Unfortunately, in either aspect of the ease it can
do but little. Thanks to the independent treasury, the Government has not
suspended payment, as it was compelled to do by the failure of the banks
in 1837. It will continue to discharge its liabilities to the people in
gold and silver. Its disbursements in coin will pass into circulation and
materially assist in restoring a sound currency. From its high credit,
should we be compelled to make a temporary loan, it can be effected on
advantageous terms. This, however, shall if possible be avoided, but if
not, then the amount shall be limited to the lowest practicable sum.
I have therefore determined that whilst no useful Government works already
in progress shall be suspended, new works not already commenced will be
postponed if this can be done without injury to the country. Those necessary
for its defense shall proceed as though there had been no crisis in our
But the Federal Government can not do much to provide against a recurrence
of existing evils. Even if insurmountable constitutional objections did
not exist against the creation of a national bank, this would furnish no
adequate preventive security. The history of the last Bank of the United
States abundantly proves the truth of this assertion. Such a bank could
not, if it would, regulate the issues and credits of 1,400 State banks
in such a manner as to prevent the ruinous expansions and contractions
in our currency which afflicted the country throughout the existence of
the late bank, or secure us against future suspensions. In 1825 an effort
was made by the Bank of England to curtail the issues of the country banks
under the most favorable circumstances. The paper currency had been expanded
to a ruinous extent, and the bank put forth all its power to contract it
in order to reduce prices and restore the equilibrium of the foreign exchanges.
It accordingly commenced a system of curtailment of its loans and issues,
in the vain hope that the joint stock and private banks of the Kingdom
would be compelled to follow its example. It found, however, that as it
contracted they expanded, and at the end of the process, to employ the
language of a very high official authority, "whatever reduction of the
paper circulation was effected by the Bank of England (in 1825) was more
than made up by the issues of the country banks."
But a bank of the United States would not, if it could, restrain the
issues and loans of the State banks, because its duty as a regulator of
the currency must often be in direct conflict with the immediate interest
of its stockholders. if we expect one agent to restrain or control another,
their interests must, at least in some degree, be antagonistic. But the
directors of a bank of the United States would feel the same interest and
the same inclination with the directors of the State banks to expand the
currency, to accommodate their favorites and friends with loans, and to
declare large dividends. Such has been our experience in regard to the
After all, we must mainly rely upon the patriotism and wisdom of the
States for the prevention and redress of the evil. If they will afford
us a real specie basis for our paper circulation by increasing the denomination
of bank notes, first to twenty and afterwards to fifty dollars; if they
will require that the banks shall at all times keep on hand at least one
dollar of gold and silver for every three dollars of their circulation
and deposits, and if they will provide by a self-executing enactment, which
nothing can arrest, that the moment they suspend they shall go into liquidation,
I believe that such provisions, with a weekly publication by each bank
of a statement of its condition, would go far to secure us against future
suspensions of specie payments.
Congress, in my opinion, possess the power to pass a uniform bankrupt
law applicable to all banking institutions throughout the United States,
and I strongly recommend its exercise. This would make it the irreversible
organic law of each bank's existence that a suspension of specie payments
shall produce its civil death. The instinct of self-preservation would
then compel it to perform its duties in such a manner as to escape the
penalty and preserve its life.
The existence of banks and the circulation of bank paper are so identified
with the habits of our people that they can not at this day be suddenly
abolished without much immediate injury to the country. If we could confine
them to their appropriate sphere and prevent them from administering to
the spirit of wild and reckless speculation by extravagant loans and issues,
they might be continued with advantage to the public.
But this I say, after long and much reflection: If experience shall
prove it to be impossible to enjoy the facilities which well-regulated
banks might afford without at the same time suffering the calamities which
the excesses of the banks have hitherto inflicted upon the country, it
would then be far the lesser evil to deprive them altogether of the power
to issue a paper currency and confine them to the functions of banks of
deposit and discount.
Our relations with foreign governments are upon the whole in a satisfactory
The diplomatic difficulties which existed between the Government of
the United States and that of Great Britain at the adjournment of the last
Congress have been happily terminated by the appointment of a British minister
to this country, who has been cordially received. Whilst it is greatly
to the interest, as I am convinced it is the sincere desire, of the Governments
and people of the two countries to be on terms of intimate friendship with
each other, it has been our misfortune almost always to have had some irritating,
if not dangerous, outstanding question with Great Britain.
Since the origin of the Government we have been employed in negotiating
treaties with that power, and afterwards in discussing their true intent
and meaning. In this respect the convention of April 19, 1850, commonly
called the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, has been the most unfortunate of
all, because the two Governments place directly opposite and contradictory
constructions upon its first and most important article. Whilst in the
United States we believed that this treaty would place both powers upon
an exact equality by the stipulation that neither will ever "occupy, or
fortify, or colonize, or assume, or exercise any dominion" over any part
of Central America, it is contended by the British Government that the
true construction of this language has left them in the rightful possession
of all that portion of Central America which was in their occupancy at
the date of the treaty; in fact, that the treaty is a virtual recognition
on the part of the United States of the right of Great Britain, either
as owner or protector, to the whole extensive coast of Central America,
sweeping round from the Rio Hondo to the port and harbor of San Juan de
Nicaragua, together with the adjacent Bay Islands, except the comparatively
small portion of this between the Sarstoon and Cape Honduras. According
to their construction, the treaty does no more than simply prohibit them
from extending their possessions in Central America beyond the present
limits. It is not too much to assert that if in the United States the treaty
had been considered susceptible of such a construction it never would have
been negotiated under the authority of the President, nor would it have
received the approbation of the Senate. The universal conviction in the
United States was that when our Government consented to violate its traditional
and time-honored policy and to stipulate with a foreign government never
to occupy or acquire territory in the Central American portion of our own
continent, the consideration for this sacrifice was that Great Britain
should, in this respect at least, be placed in the same position with ourselves.
Whilst we have no right to doubt the sincerity of the British Government
in their construction of the treaty, it is at the same time my deliberate
conviction that this construction is in opposition both to its letter and
Under the late Administration negotiations were instituted between the
two Governments for the purpose, if possible, of removing these difficulties,
and a treaty having this laudable object in view was signed at London on
the 17th October, 1856, and was submitted by the President to the Senate
on the following 10th of December. Whether this treaty, either in its original
or amended form, would have accomplished the object intended without giving
birth to new and embarrassing complications between the two Governments,
may perhaps be well questioned. Certain it is, however, it was rendered
much less objectionable by the different amendments made to it by the Senate.
The treaty as amended was ratified by me on the 12th March, 1857, and was
transmitted to London for ratification by the British Government. That
Government expressed its willingness to concur in all the amendments made
by the Senate with the single exception of the clause relating to Ruatan
and the other islands in the Bay of Honduras. The article in the original
treaty as submitted to the Senate, after reciting that these islands and
their inhabitants "having been, by a convention bearing date the 27th day
of August, 1856, between Her Britannic Majesty and the Republic of Honduras,
constituted and declared a free territory under the sovereignty of the
said Republic of Honduras," stipulated that "the two contracting parties
do hereby mutually engage to recognize and respect in all future time the
independence and rights of the said free territory as a part of the Republic
Upon an examination of this convention between Great Britain and Honduras
of the 27th August, 1856, it was found that whilst declaring the Bay Islands
to be "a free territory under the sovereignty of the Republic of Honduras"
it deprived that Republic of rights without which its sovereignty over
them could scarcely be said to exist. It divided them from the remainder
of Honduras and gave to their inhabitants a separate government of their
own, with legislative, executive, and judicial officers elected by themselves.
It deprived the Government of Honduras of the taxing power in every form
and exempted the people of the islands from the performance of military
duty except for their own exclusive defense. It also prohibited that Republic
from erecting fortifications upon them for their protection, thus leaving
them open to invasion from any quarter; and, finally, it provided "that
slavery shall not at any time hereafter be permitted to exist therein."
Had Honduras ratified this convention, she would have ratified the establishment
of a state substantially independent within her own limits, and a state
at all times subject to British influence and control. Moreover, had the
United States ratified the treaty with Great Britain in its original form,
we should have been bound "to recognize and respect in all future time"
these stipulations to the prejudice of Honduras. Being in direct opposition
to the spirit and meaning of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty as understood
in the United States, the Senate rejected the entire clause, and substituted
in its stead a simple recognition of the sovereign right of Honduras to
these islands in the following language: The two contracting parties do
hereby mutually engage to recognize and respect the islands of Ruatan,
Bonaco, Utila, Barbaretta, Helena, and Moral, situate in the Bay of Honduras
and off the coast of the Republic of Honduras, as under the sovereignty
and as part of the said Republic of Honduras.
Great Britain rejected this amendment, assigning as the only reason
that the ratifications of the convention of the 27th August, 1856, between
her and Honduras had not been "exchanged, owing to the hesitation of that
Government." Had this been done, it is stated that "Her Majesty's Government
would have had little difficulty in agreeing to the modification proposed
by the Senate, which then would have had in effect the same signification
as the original wording." Whether this would have been the effect, whether
the mere circumstance of the exchange of the ratifications of the British
convention with Honduras prior in point of time to the ratification of
our treaty with Great Britain would "in effect" have had "the same signification
as the original wording," and thus have nullified the amendment of the
Senate, may well be doubted. It is, perhaps, fortunate that the question
has never arisen.
The British Government, immediately after rejecting the treaty as amended,
proposed to enter into a new treaty with the United States, similar in
all respects to the treaty which they had just refused to ratify, if the
United States would consent to add to the Senate's clear and unqualified
recognition of the sovereignty of Honduras over the Bay Islands the following
conditional stipulation: Whenever and so soon as the Republic of Honduras
shall have concluded and ratified a treaty with Great Britain by which
Great Britain shall have ceded and the Republic of Honduras shall have
accepted the said islands, subject to the provisions and conditions contained
in such treaty.
This proposition was, of course, rejected. After the Senate had refused
to recognize the British convention with Honduras of the 27th August, 1856,
with full knowledge of its contents, it was impossible for me, necessarily
ignorant of "the provisions and conditions" which might be contained in
a future convention between the same parties, to sanction them in advance.
The fact is that when two nations like Great Britain and the United
States, mutually desirous, as they are, and I trust ever may be, of maintaining
the most friendly relations with each other, have unfortunately concluded
a treaty which they understand in senses directly opposite, the wisest
course is to abrogate such a treaty by mutual consent and to commence anew.
Had this been done promptly, all difficulties in Central America would
most probably ere this have been adjusted to the satisfaction of both parties.
The time spent in discussing the meaning of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty
would have been devoted to this praiseworthy purpose, and the task would
have been the more easily accomplished because the interest of the two
countries in Central America is identical, being confined to securing safe
transits over all the routes across the Isthmus.
Whilst entertaining these sentiments, I shall, nevertheless, not refuse
to contribute to any reasonable adjustment of the Central American questions
which is not practically inconsistent with the American interpretation
of the treaty. Overtures for this purpose have been recently made by the
British Government in a friendly spirit, which I cordially reciprocate,
but whether this renewed effort will result in success I am not yet prepared
to express an opinion. A brief period will determine.
With France our ancient relations of friendship still continue to exist.
The French Government have in several recent instances, which need not
be enumerated, evinced a spirit of good will and kindness toward our country,
which I heartily reciprocate. It is, notwithstanding, much to be regretted
that two nations whose productions are of such a character as to invite
the most extensive exchanges and freest commercial intercourse should continue
to enforce ancient and obsolete restrictions of trade against each other.
Our commercial treaty with France is in this respect an exception from
our treaties with all other commercial nations. It jealously levies discriminating
duties both on tonnage and on articles the growth, produce, or manufacture
of the one country when arriving in vessels belonging to the other.
More than forty years ago, on the 3d March, 1815, Congress passed an
act offering to all nations to admit their vessels laden with their national
productions into the ports of the United States upon the same terms with
our own vessels provided they would reciprocate to us similar advantages.
This act confined the reciprocity to the productions of the respective
foreign nations who might enter into the proposed arrangement with the
United States. The act of May 24, 1828, removed this restriction and offered
a similar reciprocity to all such vessels without reference to the origin
of their cargoes. Upon these principles our commercial treaties and arrangements
have been rounded, except with France, and let us hope that this exception
may not long exist.
Our relations with Russia remain, as they have ever been, on the most
friendly footing. The present Emperor, as well as his predecessors, have
never failed when the occasion offered to manifest their good will to our
country, and their friendship has always been highly appreciated by the
Government and people of the United States.
With all other European Governments, except that of Spain, our relations
are as peaceful as we could desire. I regret to say that no progress whatever
has been made since the adjournment of Congress toward the settlement of
any of the numerous claims of our citizens against the Spanish Government.
Besides, the outrage committed on our flag by the Spanish war frigate Ferrolana
on the high seas off the coast of Cuba in March, 1855, by firing into the
American mail steamer El Dorado and detaining and searching her, remains
unacknowledged and unredressed. The general tone and temper of the Spanish
Government toward that of the United States are much to be regretted. Our
present envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Madrid has
asked to be recalled, and it is my purpose to send out a new minister to
Spain with special instructions on all questions pending between the two
Governments, and with a determination to have them speedily and amicably
adjusted if this be possible. In the meantime, whenever our minister urges
the just claims of our citizens on the notice of the Spanish Government
he is met with the objection that Congress has never made the appropriation
recommended by President Polk in his annual message of December, 1847,
"to be paid to the Spanish Government for the purpose of distribution among
the claimants in the Amistad case." A similar recommendation was made by
my immediate predecessor in his message of December, 1853, and entirely
concurring with both in the opinion that this indemnity is justly due under
the treaty with Spain of the 27th of October, 1795, I earnestly recommend
such an appropriation to the favorable consideration of Congress.
A treaty of friendship and commerce was concluded at Constantinople
on the 13th December, 1856, between the United States and Persia, the ratifications
of which were exchanged at Constantinople on the 13th June, 1857, and the
treaty was proclaimed by the President on the 18th August, 1857. This treaty,
it is believed, will prove beneficial to American commerce. The Shah has
manifested an earnest disposition to cultivate friendly relations with
our country, and has expressed a strong wish that we should be represented
at Teheran by a minister plenipotentiary; and I recommend that an appropriation
be made for this purpose.
Recent occurrences in China have been unfavorable to a revision of the
treaty with that Empire of the 3d July, 1844, with a view to the security
and extension of our commerce. The twenty-fourth article of this treaty
stipulated for a revision of it in case experience should prove this to
be requisite, "in which case the two Governments will, at the expiration
of twelve years from the date of said convention, treat amicably concerning
the same by means of suitable persons appointed to conduct such negotiations."
These twelve years expired on the 3d July, 1856, but long before that period
it was ascertained that important changes in the treaty were necessary,
and several fruitless attempts were made by the commissioner of the United
States to effect these changes. Another effort was about to be made for
the same purpose by our commissioner in conjunction with the ministers
of England and France, but this was suspended by the occurrence of hostilities
in the Canton River between Great Britain and the Chinese Empire. These
hostilities have necessarily interrupted the trade of all nations with
Canton, which is now in a state of blockade, and have occasioned a serious
loss of life and property. Meanwhile the insurrection within the Empire
against the existing imperial dynasty still continues, and it is difficult
to anticipate what will be the result.
Under these circumstances I have deemed it advisable to appoint a distinguished
citizen of Pennsylvania envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary
to proceed to China and to avail himself of any opportunities which may
offer to effect changes in the existing treaty favorable to American commerce.
He left the United States for the place of his destination in July last
in the war steamer Minnesota. Special ministers to China have also been
appointed by the Governments of Great Britain and France.
Whilst our minister has been instructed to occupy a neutral position
in reference to the existing hostilities at Canton, he will cordially cooperate
with the British and French ministers in all peaceful measures to secure
by treaty stipulations those just concessions to commerce which the nations
of the world have a right to expect and which China can not long be permitted
to withhold. From assurances received I entertain no doubt that the three
ministers will act in harmonious concert to obtain similar commercial treaties
for each of the powers they represent.
We can not fail to feel a deep interest in all that concerns the welfare
of the independent Republics on our own continent, as well as of the Empire
Our difficulties with New Granada, which a short time since bore so
threatening an aspect, are, it is to be hoped, in a fair train of settlement
in a manner just and honorable to both parties.
The isthmus of Central America, including that of Panama, is the great
highway between the Atlantic and Pacific over which a large portion of
the commerce of the world is destined to pass. The United States are more
deeply interested than any other nation in preserving the freedom and security
of all the communications across this isthmus. It is our duty, therefore,
to take care that they shall not be interrupted either by invasions from
our own country or by wars between the independent States of Central America.
Under our treaty with New Granada of the 12th December, 1846, we are bound
to guarantee the neutrality of the Isthmus of Panama, through which the
Panama Railroad passes, "as well as the rights of sovereignty and property
which New Granada has and possesses over the said territory." This obligation
is rounded upon equivalents granted by the treaty to the Government and
people of the United States.
Under these circumstances I recommend to Congress the passage of an
act authorizing the President, in case of necessity, to employ the land
and naval forces of the United States to carry into effect this guaranty
of neutrality and protection. I also recommend similar legislation for
the security of any other route across the Isthmus in which we may acquire
an interest by treaty.
With the independent Republics on this continent it is both our duty
and our interest to cultivate the most friendly relations. We can never
feel indifferent to their fate, and must always rejoice in their prosperity.
Unfortunately both for them and for us, our example and advice have lost
much of their influence in consequence of the lawless expeditions which
have been fitted out against some of them within the limits of our country.
Nothing is better calculated to retard our steady material progress or
impair our character as a nation than the toleration of such enterprises
in violation of the law of nations.
It is one of the first and highest duties of any independent state in
its relations with the members of the great family of nations to restrain
its people from acts of hostile aggression against their citizens or subjects.
The most eminent writers on public law do not hesitate to denounce such
hostile acts as robbery and murder.
Weak and feeble states like those of Central America may not feel themselves
able to assert and vindicate their rights. The case would be far different
if expeditions were set on foot within our own territories to make private
war against a powerful nation. If such expeditions were fitted out from
abroad against any portion of our own country, to burn down our cities,
murder and plunder our people, and usurp our Government, we should call
any power on earth to the strictest account for not preventing such enormities.
Ever since the Administration of General Washington acts of Congress
have been enforced to punish severely the crime of setting on foot a military
expedition within the limits of the United States to proceed from thence
against a nation or state with whom we are at peace. The present neutrality
act of April 20, 1818, is but little more than a collection of preexisting
laws. Under this act the President is empowered to employ the land and
naval forces and the militia "for the purpose of preventing the carrying
on of any such expedition or enterprise from the territories and jurisdiction
of the United States," and the collectors of customs are authorized and
required to detain any vessel in port when there is reason to believe she
is about to take part in such lawless enterprises.
When it was first rendered probable that an attempt would be made to
get up another unlawful expedition against Nicaragua, the Secretary of
State issued instructions to the marshals and district attorneys, which
were directed by the Secretaries of War and the Navy to the appropriate
army and navy officers, requiring them to be vigilant and to use their
best exertions in carrying into effect the provisions of the act of 1818.
Notwithstanding these precautions, the expedition has escaped from our
shores. Such enterprises can do no possible good to the country, but have
already inflicted much injury both on its interests and its character.
They have prevented peaceful emigration from the United States to the States
of Central America, which could not fail to prove highly beneficial to
all the parties concerned. In a pecuniary point of view alone our citizens
have sustained heavy losses from the seizure and closing of the transit
route by the San Juan between the two oceans.
The leader of the recent expedition was arrested at New Orleans, but
was discharged on giving bail for his appearance in the insufficient sum
I commend the whole subject to the serious attention of Congress, believing
that our duty and our interest, as well as our national character, require
that we should adopt such measures as will be effectual in restraining
our citizens from committing such outrages.
I regret to inform you that the President of Paraguay has refused to
ratify the treaty between the United States and that State as amended by
the Senate, the signature of which was mentioned in the message of my predecessor
to Congress at the opening of its session in December, 1853. The reasons
assigned for this refusal will appear in the correspondence herewith submitted.
It being desirable to ascertain the fitness of the river La Plata and
its tributaries for navigation by steam, the United States steamer Water
Witch was sent thither for that purpose in 1853. This enterprise was successfully
carried on until February, 1855, when, whilst in the peaceful prosecution
of her voyage up the Parana River, the steamer was fired upon by a Paraguayan
fort. The fire was returned, but as the Water Witch was of small force
and not designed for offensive operations, she retired from the conflict.
The pretext upon which the attack was made was a decree of the President
of Paraguay of October, 1854, prohibiting foreign vessels of war from navigating
the rivers of that State. As Paraguay, however, was the owner of but one
bank of the river of that name, the other belonging to Corientes, a State
of the Argentine Confederation, the right of its Government to expect that
such a decree would be obeyed can not be acknowledged. But the Water Witch
was not, properly speaking, a vessel of war. She was a small steamer engaged
in a scientific enterprise intended for the advantage of commercial states
generally. Under these circumstances I am constrained to consider the attack
upon her as unjustifiable and as calling for satisfaction from the Paraguayan
Citizens of the United States also who were established in business
in Paraguay have had their property seized and taken from them, and have
otherwise been treated by the authorities in an insulting and arbitrary
manner, which requires redress.
A demand for these purposes will be made in a firm but conciliatory
spirit. This will the more probably be granted if the Executive shall have
authority to use other means in the event of a refusal. This is accordingly
It is unnecessary to state in detail the alarming condition of the Territory
of Kansas at the time of my inauguration. The opposing parties then stood
in hostile array against each other, and any accident might have relighted
the flames of civil war. Besides, at this critical moment Kansas was left
without a governor by the resignation of Governor Geary.
On the 19th of February previous the Territorial legislature had passed
a law providing for the election of delegates on the third Monday of June
to a convention to meet on the first Monday of September for the purpose
of framing a constitution preparatory to admission into the Union. This
law was in the main fair and just, and it is to be regretted that all the
qualified electors had not registered themselves and voted under its provisions.
At the time of the election for delegates an extensive organization
existed in the Territory whose avowed object it was, if need be, to put
down the lawful government by force and to establish a government of their
own under the so-called Topeka constitution. The persons attached to this
revolutionary organization abstained from taking any part in the election.
The act of the Territorial legislature had omitted to provide for submitting
to the people the constitution which might be framed by the convention,
and in the excited state of public feeling throughout Kansas an apprehension
extensively prevailed that a design existed to force upon them a constitution
in relation to slavery against their will. In this emergency it became
my duty, as it was my unquestionable right, having in view the union of
all good citizens in support of the Territorial laws, to express an opinion
on the true construction of the provisions concerning slavery contained
in the organic act of Congress of the 30th May, 1854. Congress declared
it to be "the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery
into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave
the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions
in their own way." Under it Kansas, "when admitted as a State," was to
"be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their constitution
may prescribe at the time of their admission."
Did Congress mean by this language that the delegates elected to frame
a constitution should have authority finally to decide the question of
slavery, or did they intend by leaving it to the people that the people
of Kansas themselves should decide this question by a direct vote? On this
subject I confess I had never entertained a serious doubt, and therefore
in my instructions to Governor Walker of the 28th March last I merely said
that when "a constitution shall be submitted to the people of the Territory
they must be protected in the exercise of their right of voting for or
against that instrument, and the fair expression of the popular will must
not be interrupted by fraud or violence."
In expressing this opinion it was far from my intention to interfere
with the decision of the people of Kansas, either for or against slavery.
From this I have always carefully abstained. Intrusted with the duty of
taking "care that the laws be faithfully executed," my only desire was
that the people of Kansas should furnish to Congress the evidence required
by the organic act, whether for or against slavery, and in this manner
smooth their passage into the Union. In emerging from the condition of
Territorial dependence into that of a sovereign State it was their duty,
in my opinion, to make known their will by the votes of the majority on
the direct question whether this important domestic institution should
or should not continue to exist. Indeed, this was the only possible mode
in which their will could be authentically ascertained.
The election of delegates to a convention must necessarily take place
in separate districts. From this cause it may readily happen, as has often
been the case, that a majority of the people of a State or Territory are
on one side of a question, whilst a majority of the representatives from
the several districts into which it is divided may be upon the other side.
This arises front the fact that in some districts delegates may be elected
by small majorities, whilst in others those of different sentiments may
receive majorities sufficiently great not only to overcome the votes given
for the former, but to leave a large majority of the whole people in direct
opposition to a majority of the delegates. Besides, our history proves
that influences may be brought to bear on the representative sufficiently
powerful to induce him to disregard the will of his constituents. The truth
is that no other authentic and satisfactory mode exists of ascertaining
the will of a majority of the people of any State or Territory on an important
and exciting question like that of slavery in Kansas except by leaving
it to a direct vote. How wise, then, was it for Congress to pass over all
subordinate and intermediate agencies and proceed directly to the source
of all legitimate power under our institutions!
How vain would any other principle prove in practice! This may be illustrated
by the case of Kansas. Should she be admitted into the Union with a constitution
either maintaining or abolishing slavery against the sentiment of the people,
this could have no other effect than to continue and to exasperate the
existing agitation during the brief period required to make the constitution
conform to the irresistible will of the majority.
The friends and supporters of the Nebraska and Kansas act, when struggling
on a recent occasion to sustain its wise provisions before the great tribunal
of the American people, never differed about its true meaning on this subject.
Everywhere throughout the Union they publicly pledged their faith and their
honor that they would cheerfully submit the question of slavery to the
decision of the bona fide people of Kansas, without any restriction or
qualification whatever. All were cordially united upon the great doctrine
of popular sovereignty, which is the vital principle of our free institutions.
Had it then been insinuated from any quarter that it would be a sufficient
compliance with the requisitions of the organic law for the members of
a convention thereafter to be elected to withhold the question of slavery
from the people and to substitute their own will for that of a legally
ascertained majority of all their constituents, this would have been instantly
rejected. Everywhere they remained true to the resolution adopted on a
celebrated occasion recognizing "the right of the people of all the Territories,
including Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the legally and fairly expressed
will of a majority of actual residents, and whenever the number of their
inhabitants justifies it, to form a constitution with or without slavery
and be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the
The convention to frame a constitution for Kansas met on the first Monday
of September last. They were called together by virtue of an act of the
Territorial legislature, whose lawful existence had been recognized by
Congress in different forms and by different enactments. A large proportion
of the citizens of Kansas did not think proper to register their names
and to vote at the election for delegates; but an opportunity to do this
having been fairly afforded, their refusal to avail themselves of their
right could in no manner affect the legality of the convention. This convention
proceeded to frame a constitution for Kansas, and finally adjourned on
the 7th day of November. But little difficulty occurred in the convention
except on the subject of slavery. The truth is that the general provisions
of our recent State constitutions are so similar and, I may add, so excellent
that the difference between them is not essential. Under the earlier practice
of the Government no constitution framed by the convention of a Territory
preparatory to its admission into the Union as a State had been submitted
to the people. I trust, however, the example set by the last Congress,
requiring that the constitution of Minnesota "should be subject to the
approval and ratification of the people of the proposed State," may be
followed on future occasions. I took it for granted that the convention
of Kansas would act in accordance with this example, rounded, as it is,
on correct principles, and hence my instructions to Governor Walker in
favor of submitting the constitution to the people were expressed in general
and unqualified terms.
In the Kansas-Nebraska act, however, this requirement, as applicable
to the whole constitution, had not been inserted, and the convention were
not bound by its terms to submit any other portion of the instrument to
an election except that which relates to the "domestic institution" of
slavery. This will be rendered clear by a simple reference to its language.
It was "not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude
it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and
regulate their domestic institutions in their own way." According to the
plain construction of the sentence, the words "domestic institutions" have
a direct, as they have an appropriate, reference to slavery. "Domestic
institutions" are limited to the family. The relation between master and
slave and a few others are "domestic institutions," and are entirely distinct
from institutions of a political character. Besides, there was no question
then before Congress, nor, indeed, has there since been any serious question
before the people of Kansas or the country, except that which relates to
the "domestic institution" of slavery. The convention, after an angry and
excited debate, finally determined, by a majority of only two, to submit
the question of slavery to the people, though at the last forty-three of
the fifty delegates present affixed their signatures to the constitution.
A large majority of the convention were in favor of establishing slavery
in Kansas. They accordingly inserted an article in the constitution for
this purpose similar in form to those which had been adopted by other Territorial
conventions. In the schedule, however, providing for the transition from
a Territorial to a State government the question has been fairly and explicitly
referred to the people whether they will have a constitution "with or without
slavery." It declares that before the constitution adopted by the convention
"shall be sent to Congress for admission into the Union as a State" an
election shall be held to decide this question, at which all the white
male inhabitants of the Territory above the age of 21 are entitled to vote.
They are to vote by ballot, and "the ballots cast at said election shall
be indorsed 'constitution with slavery' and 'constitution with no slavery.'"
If there be a majority in favor of the "constitution with slavery," then
it is to be transmitted to Congress by the president of the convention
in its original form; if, on the contrary, there shall be a majority in
favor of the "constitution with no slavery," "then the article providing
for slavery shall be stricken from the constitution by the president of
this convention;" and it is expressly declared that "no slavery shall exist
in the State of Kansas, except that the right of property in slaves now
in the Territory shall in no manner be interfered with;" and in that event
it is made his duty to have the constitution thus ratified transmitted
to the Congress of the United States for the admission of the State into
At this election every citizen will have an opportunity of expressing
his opinion by his vote "whether Kansas shall be received into the Union
with or without slavery," and thus this exciting question may be peacefully
settled in the very mode required by the organic law. The election will
be held under legitimate authority, and if any portion of the inhabitants
shall refuse to vote, a fair opportunity to do so having been presented,
this will be their own voluntary act and they alone will be responsible
for the consequences.
Whether Kansas shall be a free or a slave State must eventually, under
some authority, be decided by an election; and the question can never be
more clearly or distinctly presented to the people than it is at the present
moment. Should this opportunity be rejected she may be involved for years
in domestic discord, and possibly in civil war, before she can again make
up the issue now so fortunately tendered and again reach the point she
has already attained.
Kansas has for some years occupied too much of the public attention.
It is high time this should be directed to far more important objects.
When once admitted into the Union, whether with or without slavery, the
excitement beyond her own limits will speedily pass away, and she will
then for the first time be left, as she ought to have been long since,
to manage her own affairs in her own way. If her constitution on the subject
of slavery or on any other subject be displeasing to a majority of the
people, no human power can prevent them from changing it within a brief
period. Under these circumstances it may well be questioned whether the
peace and quiet of the whole country are not of greater importance than
the mere temporary triumph of either of the political parties in Kansas.
Should the constitution without slavery be adopted by the votes of the
majority, the rights of property in slaves now in the Territory are reserved.
The number of these is very small, but if it were greater the provision
would be equally just and reasonable. The slaves were brought into the
Territory under the Constitution of the United States and are now the property
of their masters. This point has at length been finally decided by the
highest judicial tribunal of the country, and this upon the plain principle
that when a confederacy of sovereign States acquire a new territory at
their joint expense both equality and justice demand that the citizens
of one and all of them shall have the right to take into it whatsoever
is recognized as property by the common Constitution. To have summarily
confiscated the property in slaves already in the Territory would have
been an act of gross injustice and contrary to the practice of the older
States of the Union which have abolished slavery.
A Territorial government was established for Utah by act of Congress
approved the 9th September, 1850, and the Constitution and laws of the
United States were thereby extended over it "so far as the same or any
provisions thereof may be applicable." This act provided for the appointment
by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, of
a governor (who was to be ex officio superintendent of Indian affairs),
a secretary, three judges of the supreme court, a marshal, and a district
attorney. Subsequent acts provided for the appointment of the officers
necessary to extend our land and our Indian system over the Territory.
Brigham Young was appointed the first governor on the 20th September, 1850,
and has held the office ever since. Whilst Governor Young has been both
governor and superintendent of Indian affairs throughout this period, he
has been at the same time the head of the church called the Latter-day
Saints, and professes to govern its members and dispose of their property
by direct inspiration and authority from the Almighty. His power has been,
therefore, absolute over both church and state.
The people of Utah almost exclusively belong to this church, and believing
with a fanatical spirit that he is governor of the Territory by divine
appointment, they obey his commands as if these were direct revelations
from Heaven. If, therefore, he chooses that his government shall come into
collision with the Government of the United States, the members of the
Mormon Church will yield implicit obedience to his will. Unfortunately,
existing facts leave but little doubt that such is his determination. Without
entering upon a minute history of occurrences, it is sufficient to say
that all the officers of the United States, judicial and executive, with
the single exception of two Indian agents, have found it necessary for
their own personal safety to withdraw from the Territory, and there no
longer remains any government in Utah but the despotism of Brigham Young.
This being the condition of affairs in the Territory, I could not mistake
the path of duty. As Chief Executive Magistrate I was bound to restore
the supremacy of the Constitution and laws within its limits. In order
to effect this purpose, I appointed a new governor and other Federal officers
for Utah and sent with them a military force for their protection and to
aid as a posse comitatus in case of need in the execution of the laws.
With the religious opinions of the Mormons, as long as they remained
mere opinions, however deplorable in themselves and revolting to the moral
and religious sentiments of all Christendom, I had no right to interfere.
Actions alone, when in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United
States, become the legitimate subjects for the jurisdiction of the civil
magistrate. My instructions to Governor Cumming have therefore been framed
in strict accordance with these principles. At their date a hope was indulged
that no necessity might exist for employing the military in restoring and
maintaining the authority of the law, but this hope has now vanished. Governor
Young has by proclamation declared his determination to maintain his power
by force, and has already committed acts of hostility against the United
States. Unless he should retrace his steps the Territory of Utah will be
in a state of open rebellion. He has committed these acts of hostility
notwithstanding Major Van Vliet, an officer of the Army, sent to Utah by
the Commanding General to purchase provisions for the troops, had given
him the strongest assurances of the peaceful intentions of the Government,
and that the troops would only be employed as a posse comitatus when called
on by the civil authority to aid in the execution of the laws.
There is reason to believe that Governor Young has long contemplated
this result. He knows that the continuance of his despotic power depends
upon the exclusion of all settlers from the Territory except those who
will acknowledge his divine mission and implicitly obey his will, and that
an enlightened public opinion there would soon prostrate institutions at
war with the laws both of God and man. "He has therefore for several years,
in order to maintain his independence, been industriously employed in collecting
and fabricating arms and munitions of war and in disciplining the Mormons
for military service." As superintendent of Indian affairs he has had an
opportunity of tampering with the Indian tribes and exciting their hostile
feelings against the United States. This, according to our information,
he has accomplished in regard to some of these tribes, while others have
remained true to their allegiance and have communicated his intrigues to
our Indian agents. He has laid in a store of provisions for three years,
which in case of necessity, as he informed Major Van Vliet, he will conceal,
"and then take to the mountains and bid defiance to all the powers of the
A great part of all this may be idle boasting, but yet no wise government
will lightly estimate the efforts which may be inspired by such frenzied
fanaticism as exists among the Mormons in Utah. This is the first rebellion
which has existed in our Territories, and humanity itself requires that
we should put it down in such a manner that it shall be the last. To trifle
with it would be to encourage it and to render it formidable. We ought
to go there with such an imposing force as to convince these deluded people
that resistance would be vain, and thus spare the effusion of blood. We
can in this manner best convince them that we are their friends, not their
enemies. In order to accomplish this object it will be necessary, according
to the estimate of the War Department, to raise four additional regiments;
and this I earnestly recommend to Congress. At the present moment of depression
in the revenues of the country I am sorry to be obliged to recommend such
a measure; but I feel confident of the support of Congress, cost what it
may, in suppressing the insurrection and in restoring and maintaining the
sovereignty of the Constitution and laws over the Territory of Utah.
I recommend to Congress the establishment of a Territorial government
over Arizona, incorporating with it such portions of New Mexico as they
may deem expedient. I need scarcely adduce arguments in support of this
recommendation. We are bound to protect the lives and the property of our
citizens inhabiting Arizona, and these are now without any efficient protection.
Their present number is already considerable, and is rapidly increasing,
notwithstanding the disadvantages under which they labor. Besides, the
proposed Territory is believed to be rich in mineral and agricultural resources,
especially in silver and copper. The mails of the United States to California
are now carried over it throughout its whole extent, and this route is
known to be the nearest and believed to be the best to the Pacific.
Long experience has deeply convinced me that a strict construction of
the powers granted to Congress is the only true, as well as the only safe,
theory of the Constitution. Whilst this principle shall guide my public
conduct, I consider it clear that under the war-making power Congress may
appropriate money for the Construction of a military road through the Territories
of the United States when this is absolutely necessary for the defense
of any of the States against foreign invasion. The Constitution has conferred
upon Congress power "to declare war," "to raise and support armies," "to
provide and maintain a navy," and to call forth the militia to "repel invasions."
These high sovereign powers necessarily involve important and responsible
public duties, and among them there is none so sacred and so imperative
as that of preserving our soil from the invasion of a foreign enemy. The
Constitution has therefore left nothing on this point to construction,
but expressly requires that "the United States shall protect each of them
[the States] against invasion." Now if a military road over our own Territories
be indispensably necessary to enable us to meet and repel the invader,
it follows as a necessary consequence not only that we possess the power,
but it is our imperative duty to construct such a road. It would be an
absurdity to invest a government with the unlimited power to make and conduct
war and at the same time deny to it the only means of reaching and defeating
the enemy at the frontier. Without such a road it is quite evident we can
not "protect" California and our Pacific possessions "against invasion."
We can not by any other means transport men and munitions of war from the
Atlantic States in sufficient time successfully to defend these remote
and distant portions of the Republic.
Experience has proved that the routes across the isthmus of Central
America are at best but a very uncertain and unreliable mode of communication.
But even if this were not the case, they would at once be closed against
us in the event of war with a naval power so much stronger than our own
as to enable it to blockade the ports at either end of these routes. After
all, therefore, we can only rely upon a military road through our own Territories;
and ever since the origin of the Government Congress has been in the practice
of appropriating money from the public Treasury for the construction of
The difficulties and the expense of constructing a military railroad
to connect our Atlantic and Pacific States have been greatly exaggerated.
The distance on the Arizona route, near the thirty-second parallel of north
latitude, between the western boundary of Texas, on the Rio Grande, and
the eastern boundary of California, on the Colorado, from the best explorations
now within our knowledge, does not exceed 470 miles, and the face of the
country is in the main favorable. For obvious reasons the Government ought
not to undertake the work itself by means of its own agents. This ought
to be committed to other agencies, which Congress might assist, either
by grants of land or money, or by both, upon such terms and conditions
as they may deem most beneficial for the country. Provision might thus
be made not only for the safe, rapid, and economical transportation of
troops and munitions of war, but also of the public mails. The commercial
interests of the whole country, both East and West, would be greatly promoted
by such a road, and, above all, it would be a powerful additional bond
of union. And although advantages of this kind, whether postal, commercial,
or political, can not confer constitutional power, yet they may furnish
auxiliary arguments in favor of expediting a work which, in my judgment,
is clearly embraced within the war-making power.
For these reasons I commend to the friendly consideration of Congress
the subject of the Pacific Railroad, without finally committing myself
to any particular route.
The report of the Secretary of the Treasury will furnish a detailed
statement of the condition of the public finances and of the respective
branches of the public service devolved upon that Department of the Government.
By this report it appears that the amount of revenue received from all
sources into the Treasury during the fiscal year ending the 30th June,
1857, was $68,631,513.67, which amount, with the balance of $19,901,325.45
remaining in the Treasury at the commencement of the year, made an aggregate
for the service of the year of $88,532,839.12.
The public expenditures for the fiscal year ending 30th June, 1857,
amounted to $70,822,724.85, of which $5,943,896.91 were applied to the
redemption of the public debt, including interest and premium, leaving
in the Treasury at the commencement of the present fiscal year, on the
1st July, 1857, $17,710,114.27.
The receipts into the Treasury for the first quarter of the present
fiscal year, commencing 1st July, 1857, were $20,929,819.81, and the estimated
receipts of the remaining three quarters to the 30th June, 1858, are $36,750,000,
making, with the balance before stated, an aggregate of $75,389,934.08
for the service of the present fiscal year.
The actual expenditures during the first quarter of the present fiscal
year were $23,714,528.37, of which $3,895,232.39 were applied to the redemption
of the public debt, including interest and premium. The probable expenditures
of the remaining three quarters to 30th June, 1858, are $51,248,530.04,
including interest on the public debt, making an aggregate of $74,963,058.41,
leaving an estimated balance in the Treasury at the close of the present
fiscal year of $426,875.67.
The amount of the public debt at the commencement of the present fiscal
year was $29,060,386.90.
The amount redeemed since the 1st of July was $3,895,232.39, leaving
a balance unredeemed at this time of $25,165,154.51.
The amount of estimated expenditures for the remaining three quarters
of the present fiscal year will in all probability be increased from the
causes set forth in the report of the Secretary. His suggestion, therefore,
that authority should be given to supply any temporary deficiency by the
issue of a limited amount of Treasury notes is approved, and I accordingly
recommend the passage of such a law.
As stated in the report of the Secretary, the tariff of March 3, 1857,
has been in operation for so short a period of time and under circumstances
so unfavorable to a just development of its results as a revenue measure
that I should regard it as inexpedient, at least for the present, to undertake
I transmit herewith the reports made to me by the Secretaries of War
and of the Navy, of the Interior, and of the Postmaster-General. They all
contain valuable and important information and suggestions, which I commend
to the favorable consideration of Congress.
I have already recommended the raising of four additional regiments,
and the report of the Secretary of War presents strong reasons proving
this increase of the Army under existing circumstances to be indispensable.
I would call the special attention of Congress to the recommendation
of the Secretary of the Navy in favor of the construction of ten small
war steamers of light draft. For some years the Government has been obliged
on many occasions to hire such steamers from individuals to supply its
pressing wants. At the present moment we have no armed vessel in the Navy
which can penetrate the rivers of China. We have but few which can enter
any of the harbors south of Norfolk, although many millions of foreign
and domestic commerce annually pass in and out of these harbors. Some of
our most valuable interests and most vulnerable points are thus left exposed.
This class of vessels of light draft, great speed, and heavy guns would
be formidable in coast defense. The cost of their construction will not
be great and they will require but a comparatively small expenditure to
keep them in commission. In time of peace they will prove as effective
as much larger vessels and more useful. One of them should be at every
station where we maintain a squadron, and three or four should be constantly
employed on our Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Economy, utility, and efficiency
combine to recommend them as almost indispensable. Ten of these small vessels
would be of incalculable advantage to the naval service, and the whole
cost of their construction would not exceed $2,300,000, or $230,000 each.
The report of the Secretary of the Interior is worthy of grave consideration.
It treats of the numerous important and diversified branches of domestic
administration intrusted to him by law. Among these the most prominent
are the public lands and our relations with the Indians. Our system for
the disposal of the public lands, originating with the fathers of the Republic,
has been improved as experience pointed the way, and gradually adapted
to the growth and settlement of our Western States and Territories. It
has worked well in practice. Already thirteen States and seven Territories
have been carved out of these lands, and still more than a thousand millions
of acres remain unsold. What a boundless prospect this presents to our
country of future prosperity and power!
We have heretofore disposed of 363,862,464 acres of the public land.
Whilst the public lands, as a source of revenue, are of great importance,
their importance is far greater as furnishing homes for a hardy and independent
race of honest and industrious citizens who desire to subdue and cultivate
the soil. They ought to be administered mainly with a view of promoting
this wise and benevolent policy. In appropriating them for any other purpose
we ought to use even greater economy than if they had been converted into
money and the proceeds were already in the public Treasury. To squander
away this richest and noblest inheritance which any people have ever enjoyed
upon objects of doubtful constitutionality or expediency would be to violate
one of the most important trusts ever committed to any people. Whilst I
do not deny to Congress the power, when acting bona fide as a proprietor,
to give away portions of them for the purpose of increasing the value of
the remainder, yet, considering the great temptation to abuse this power,
we can not be too cautious in its exercise. Actual settlers under existing
laws are protected against other purchasers at the public sales in their
right of preemption to the extent of a quarter section, or 160 acres, of
land. The remainder may then be disposed of at public or entered at private
sale in unlimited quantities. Speculation has of late years prevailed to
a great extent in the public lands. The consequence has been that large
portions of them have become the property of individuals and companies,
and thus the price is greatly enhanced to those who desire to purchase
for actual settlement. In order to limit the area of speculation as much
as possible, the extinction of the Indian title and the extension of the
public surveys ought only to keep pace with the tide of emigration.
If Congress should hereafter grant alternate sections to States or companies,
as they have done heretofore, I recommend that the intermediate sections
retained by the Government should be subject to preemption by actual settlers.
It ought ever to be our cardinal policy to reserve the public lands
as much as may be for actual settlers, and this at moderate prices. We
shall thus not only best promote the prosperity of the new States and Territories
and the power of the Union, but shall secure homes for our posterity for
The extension of our limits has brought within our jurisdiction many
additional and populous tribes of Indians, a large proportion of which
are wild, untractable, and difficult to control. Predatory and warlike
in their disposition and habits, it is impossible altogether to restrain
them from committing aggressions on each other, as well as upon our frontier
citizens and those emigrating to our distant States and Territories. Hence
expensive military expeditions are frequently necessary to overawe and
chastise the more lawless and hostile. The present system of making them
valuable presents to influence them to remain at peace has proved ineffectual.
It is believed to be the better policy to colonize them in suitable localities
where they can receive the rudiments of education and be gradually induced
to adopt habits of industry. So far as the experiment has been tried it
has worked well in practice, and it will doubtless prove to be less expensive
than the present system.
The whole number of Indians within our territorial limits is believed
to be, from the best data in the Interior Department, about 325,000. The
tribes of Cherokees, Choctaws, Chickasaws, and Creeks settled in the Territory
set apart for them west of Arkansas are rapidly advancing in education
and in all the arts of civilization and self-government and we may indulge
the agreeable anticipation that at no very distant day they will be incorporated
into the Union as one of the sovereign States.
It will be seen from the report of the Postmaster-General that the Post-Office
Department still continues to depend on the Treasury, as it has been compelled
to do for several years past, for an important portion of the means of
sustaining and extending its operations. Their rapid growth and expansion
are shown by a decennial statement of the number of post-offices and the
length of post-roads, commencing with the year 1827. In that year there
were 7,000 post-offices; in 1837, 11,177; in 1847, 15,146, and in 1857
they number 26,586. In this year 1,725 post-offices have been established
and 704 discontinued, leaving a net increase of 1,021. The postmasters
of 368 offices are appointed by the President.
The length of post-roads in 1827 was 105,336 miles; in 1837,141,242
miles; in 1847, 153,818 miles, and in the year 1857 there are 242,601 miles
of post-road, including 22,530 miles of railroad on which the mails are
The expenditures of the Department for the fiscal year ending on the
30th June, 1857, as adjusted by the Auditor, amounted to $11,507,670. To
defray these expenditures there was to the credit of the Department on
the 1st July, 1856, the sum of $789,599; the gross revenue of the year,
including the annual allowances for the transportation of free mail matter,
produced $8,053,951, and the remainder was supplied by the appropriation
from the Treasury of $2,250,000 granted by the act of Congress approved
August 18, 1856, and by the appropriation of $666,883 made by the act of
March 3, 1857, leaving $252,763 to be carried to the credit of the Department
in the accounts of the current year. I commend to your consideration the
report of the Department in relation to the establishment of the overland
mail route from the Mississippi River to San Francisco, Cal. The route
was selected with my full concurrence, as the one, in my judgment, best
calculated to attain the important objects contemplated by Congress.
The late disastrous monetary revulsion may have one good effect should
it cause both the Government and the people to return to the practice of
a wise and judicious economy both in public and private expenditures.
An overflowing Treasury has led to habits of prodigality and extravagance
in our legislation. It has induced Congress to make large appropriations
to objects for which they never would have provided had it been necessary
to raise the amount of revenue required to meet them by increased taxation
or by loans. We are now compelled to pause in our career and to scrutinize
our expenditures with the utmost vigilance; and in performing this duty
I pledge my cooperation to the extent of my constitutional competency.
It ought to be observed at the same time that true public economy does
not consist in withholding the means necessary to accomplish important
national objects intrusted to us by the Constitution, and especially such
as may be necessary for the common defense. In the present crisis of the
country it is our duty to confine our appropriations to objects of this
character, unless in cases where justice to individuals may demand a different
course. In all cases care ought to be taken that the money granted by Congress
shall be faithfully and economically applied.
Under the Federal Constitution "every bill which shall have passed the
House of Representatives and the Senate shall, before it become a law,"
be approved and signed by the President; and if not approved, "he shall
return it with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated."
In order to perform this high and responsible duty, sufficient time must
be allowed the President to read and examine every bill presented to him
for approval. Unless this be afforded, the Constitution becomes a dead
letter in this particular, and; even worse, it becomes a means of deception.
Our constituents, seeing the President's approval and signature attached
to each act of Congress, are induced to believe that he has actually performed
his duty, when in truth nothing is in many cases more unfounded.
From the practice of Congress such an examination of each bill as the
Constitution requires has been rendered impossible. The most important
business of each session is generally crowded into its last hours, and
the alternative presented to the President is either to violate the constitutional
duty which he owes to the people and approve bills which for want of time
it is impossible he should have examined, or by his refusal to do this
subject the country and individuals to great loss and inconvenience.
Besides, a practice has grown up of late years to legislate in appropriation
bills at the last hours of the session on new and important subjects. This
practice constrains the President either to suffer measures to become laws
which he does not approve or to incur the risk of stopping the wheels of
the Government by vetoing an appropriation bill. Formerly such bills were
confined to specific appropriations for carrying into effect existing laws
and the well-established policy of the country, and little time was then
requited by the President for their examination.
For my own part, I have deliberately determined that I shall approve
no bills which I have not examined, and it will be a case of extreme and
most urgent necessity which shall ever induce me to depart from this rule.
I therefore respectfully but earnestly recommend that the two Houses would
allow the President at least two days previous to the adjournment of each
session within which no new bill shall be presented to him for approval.
Under the existing joint rule one day is allowed, but this rule has been
hitherto so constantly suspended in practice that important bills continue
to be presented to him up till the very last moments of the session. In
a large majority of cases no great public inconvenience can arise from
the want of time to examine their provisions, because the Constitution
has declared that if a bill be presented to the President within the last
ten days of the session he is not required to return it, either with an
approval or with a veto, "in which case it shall not be a law." It may
then lie over and be taken up and passed at the next session. Great inconvenience
would only be experienced in regard to appropriation bills, but, fortunately,
under the late excellent law allowing a salary instead of a per diem to
members of Congress the expense and inconvenience of a called session will
be greatly reduced.
I can not conclude without commending to your favorable consideration
the interest of the people of this District. Without a representative on
the floor of Congress, they have for this very reason peculiar claims upon
our just regard. To this I know, from my long acquaintance with them, they
are eminently entitled.