Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2019 with funding from 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 
 
 https://archive.org/details/speechofhonthbay00bayl_2 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. T. H. BAYLY, OF VIRGINIA, 
 
 ON THE JOINT RESOLUTION LIMITING 
 
 THE EXPENSE OE COLLECTING THE REVENUE. 
 
 r 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 30 AND FEBRUARY 8, 1850. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 
 
 1850. 
 
*• ** 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ’ ■ 7 - : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 ■ i r.j: . : ‘ • 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
33^< 73 
 
 $3 Vxu , ' 3 
 
 EXPENSE OF COLLECTING THE 
 
 REVENUE. 
 
 Mr. BAYLY rose and addressed the committee 
 as follows : 
 
 Mr. Chairman : I deem it proper to make some 
 remarks relative to the amendment which the Com¬ 
 mittee of Ways and Means have proposed to the 
 resolution from the Senate. 
 
 By the law of the 3d of March, 1849, the ex¬ 
 penses for collecting the revenue was limited to 
 $1,560,000 for the present fiscal year, commencing 
 the 1st of July last and ending the 30th of June 
 next, as I understand it. 1 think this is the plain 
 meaning and import of the act. I know that the 
 Secretary of the Treasury, under the advice of the 
 Attorney General, has given a different construc¬ 
 tion to the law. They have decided that the 
 limitation did not take effect until the last half of 
 the current fiscal year, viz: until from the 1st of 
 January to the 30th of June, 1850. But I shall 
 go into no discussion upon this point. I have 
 no disposition to criticise the correctness of that 
 opinion. I doubt not it was honestly entertained; 
 and I shall leave its discussion to others. And 
 I do this the more readily because I do not 
 consider it at all material upon this occasion. 
 Concede, if you please, that the limitation in the act 
 did not take effect until after the 1st of January; 
 yet the Secretary of the Treasury ought, during the 
 ten months preceding the period when it would 
 take effect, to have commenced his reduction of ex¬ 
 penditure so as to have brought himself gradually, 
 and without too great a shock, within the limit pre¬ 
 scribed by Congress. He had no right to anticipate 
 that Congress would precipitately suspend or re¬ 
 peal a law which, after three years’ consideration, 
 they had deliberately passed. But instead of this, 
 he expended during the first six months ofthe fiscal 
 year $1,141,897 21, as is ascertained, and $150,000 
 more as he estimates—making $1,291,897 21— 
 leaving but $268,102 79 for the last six months, if 
 the construction which I put upon the law be cor¬ 
 rect. But take his own construction, and admit 
 that the limitation in the act did not take effect 
 until the 1st of January; yet he allowed his 
 expenditures to run on for the first six months up 
 to the sum of $1,291,897 21, although he knew he 
 would have but $780 000 for the last six months. 
 Take his own construction, and I have no dispo¬ 
 sition to do him injustice, yet I maintain that he is 
 responsible for any jar which may occur; for he 
 ought so to have projected his reductions of ex¬ 
 penditures as to have made the operation gradual 
 and easy, instead of precipitate and harsh. He 
 ought to have distributed his reductions through 
 the year, instead of increasing, as he has done, his 
 expenditures during the first six months, and thus 
 making a precipitate reduction necessary in the last. 
 
 The amount of revenue collected and estimated for 
 the first six months of the present fiscal year is 
 $18,262,485. The amount expended, as we have 
 already seen, has been $1,291,897 21, or a little 
 upwards of seven per cent, upon the receipts. 
 The importance of this statement will be seen in 
 the sequel. 
 
 In this condition of affairs the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, in his annual report to Congress, asked 
 our interposition. For some time we could not 
 transact business in consequence of our not having 
 organized forthatpurpose. Still these expenditures 
 went on. The Senate being first organized, took 
 up the subject in advance of us. That body passed 
 the joint resolution now before us, appropriating 
 the present fiscal year the same sum expended 
 in the year ending 30th of June, 1848; although 
 the revenue collected for that year was $33,034,276, 
 and for this year the Secretary estimates it at 
 $31,500,000. It was acceptable on all sides. It 
 passed without objection. It appropriated for the 
 present fiscal year $2,132,636, that being the 
 amount expended in the fiscal year ending June, 
 1848. But it was represented to our committee 
 by the Secretary of the Treasury that this would 
 give him no relief. According to his construction 
 he already had $780,000; and this resolution only 
 gave him $840,739 52—difference $60,739 58. It 
 was contended that the sudden reuuction which 
 this resolution would make necessary would be 
 highly injurious to the public service: and it was 
 proposed that we should appropriate, for the last 
 half of the present fiscal year, one half of what 
 was expended in the year 1848. This was agreed 
 to; and it is the amendment now before you. 
 
 We expended, as I have already said, in the 
 year ending 1848, $2,132,636—one half of which 
 is $1,066,318. Add that which has already been ex¬ 
 pended in the first six months, viz: $1,291,897 21, 
 and it makes $2,358,215 21; or $225,579 more 
 than was expended in 1848. The amount whic 
 we thus appropriate is upwards of seven per cent, 
 upon the estimated receipts. 
 
 But, notwithstanding the Secretary estimates 
 that our receipts for the current fiscal year will be 
 $1,500,000 less than in 1848, yet, in addition to 
 this surplus in the appropriation over that year, of 
 $225,579, it is asked that Oregon and California 
 should be excepted ! But the Secretary of the 
 Treasury himself does not estimate for the ex¬ 
 penses of the new districts in Texas, Oregon, and 
 California, for the last half of the fiscal year but 
 $125,000; and even add his estimate of $50,000 
 for increase of business, and it only amounts to 
 $175,000, which would leave a surplus of $50,579 of 
 appropriation for the Atlantic coast over what was 
 
4 
 
 expended in 1848. But it will be said that the 
 warehouse system which it was supposed would 
 cost the Government nothing, has become a charge 
 upon the Treasury of $194,634 66. To make this 
 sum up, items are included which ought not to be 
 charged to the warehousing system. 
 
 But let this pass. I will make no point about 
 which there can be controversy. Still it must be 
 recollected that $152,723 79 was expended for 
 warehouses in the year ending 30th June, 1848— 
 being but $41,910 87 less than the sum charged 
 to warehouses for this year. Which sum, deducted 
 from the surplus above stated, would leave $8,668 
 more appropriated by this bill than was expended 
 in 1848, after allowing the Secretary all he asks 
 for California,Oregon, the new districts established 
 since then, and what he terms increase of business, 
 (which last l do not exactly understand, as he es¬ 
 timates the receipts at less than they were in that 
 year,) and also the difference of the expense of 
 warehouses in that year and this. In addition to 
 this, $27,096 was expended in that year upon rev¬ 
 enue cutters. The Secretary last summer, to say 
 nothing about his late circular, greatly reduced 
 this branch of expenditure, and to the extent he 
 did so added to his available means for other ser¬ 
 vice. Cannot gentlemen be satisfied with this ? 
 Are we, by the adoption of either of the amend¬ 
 ments of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Vinton,] 
 to increase this sum which is at the disposal of 
 the Secretary to an indefinite amount? My only 
 fear is we have been too yielding already. Still 
 we are asked to grant more; and how much more 
 I am unable to say, as the amendments of the gen¬ 
 tleman from Ohio [Mr. Vinton] appropriate an in¬ 
 definite sum. 
 
 Thus it will be seen that all the indignation 
 which it has been attempted to raise against Con¬ 
 gress, throughout the country, is utterly uncalled 
 for. If there be cause for indignation, it must 
 rest elsewhere. If the Secretary of the Treasury 
 had commenced his curtailments in time—if he 
 had extended them from July, 1849, to June, 
 1850, instead of increasing his expenditures in 
 the first six months, by multiplying officers and 
 increasing their salaries, as he has done in many 
 instances, the whole operation of reduction would 
 have gone on easily and smoothly, and no one 
 scarcely would have known that it was going on 
 at all. But instead of that, the expenditures are 
 increased in the first six months, arid the result is, 
 the jar which the reduction culled for in the last is 
 felt. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I have said 1 feared that in 
 agreeing to the amendment to the Senate resolu¬ 
 tion, we have conceded too much. We certainly 
 have if we had the whole year to go over; but we 
 have not. The Secretary, as I have already 
 shown, has greatly exceeded the limits of the law 
 and of necessity in the first six months. An¬ 
 other month, on the same or near y the same rate 
 of high expenditure, is gone. There are but five 
 left. Can we, with due regard to the public ser¬ 
 vice, compress the whole reduction within five 
 months? I think not. Let it not be said that the 
 Secretary has brought it upon himself, and that 
 he must suffer the consequences. It is not the 
 Secretary alone, or principally, who is to suffer; 
 we must look to the country, and if he has erred, 
 we must not. It will not do to punish the coun¬ 
 try for his faults. 1 am willing to give relief for 
 
 the present, even if it be extravagant. But, sir, 
 this whole thing must be looked into, and if Con¬ 
 gress will sustain me, it shall be looked into and 
 probed to its bottom. 
 
 The expenditures of this Government are too 
 great in all of its departments, and in none more 
 than in collecting our revenue. When we con¬ 
 sider the character of our system, prior to the law 
 of the 3d of March, 1849, against which such a 
 clamor is raised, it is not perceived how it could 
 have been otherwise. No appropriations made 
 bylaw; no accountability; everything left to the 
 discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury and 
 collectors ! My only surprise is that things have 
 not been worse. But they have been bad enough. 
 What do you suppose, if we grai t the Secretary 
 of the Treasury all he asks, will be the cost of 
 collecting the revenue for the present fiscal year? 
 He expended in the past six months, as we have 
 already seen, $1,291,897. He asks for $1,325,000 
 more, making $2,616,897. He estimates that the 
 revenue from customs will be $31,500,000. So the 
 expenses of collection would be upwards of eight 
 percent. With the sum we give him it will be 
 upwards of seven percent. In 1848 the percentage 
 for collecting the revenue was six and near a half 
 per cent.; in 1849 it was upwards of seven per 
 cent. 
 
 The Secretary estimates that the receipts from 
 the customs for the year ending June, 1851, will 
 be $32,000 000; and he puts the expenses of col¬ 
 lection at $2,750,000, or at the rate of near nine 
 per cent. 
 
 Sir, is it possible that this is necessary? What 
 other country pays so much for collecting its rev¬ 
 enue? What State in this Union, where direct 
 taxes prevails, pays so much ? I speak with con¬ 
 fidence as to one, (Virginia,) with which I am bet¬ 
 ter acquainted than with the rest. Our collectors, 
 who have to call personally upon every tax-payer 
 and receive the dues of the Commonwealth in 
 small sums—some of them less than a dollar—and 
 who is required by law to take, at his own ex¬ 
 pense, what he collects to the seat of Government; 
 to incur all risk, and pay it into the Treasury—is 
 allowed but five per cent.; and in some instances, 
 where the collections are large, even less. It is 
 true, for prompt payment the sheriffs are allowed 
 seven and a half per cent, upon the land and prop¬ 
 erty tax, but the additional two and a half per 
 cent, is in the nature of an insurance upon the col¬ 
 lection; and to secure it the sheriffs are compelled 
 in most instances to advance the taxes and depend 
 upon collections for reimbursement. I presume a 
 greater amount is not paid in other States. Yet 
 their system of taxation is by a direct tax; and we 
 know that a leading argument in favor of indirect 
 taxes has always been, that from the fact that they 
 are received in large sums, and at few places, they 
 can be collected at less expense. 
 
 But in looking into the matter I have not 
 stopped with the cost of collecting the revenue by 
 direct taxation in the States. During, and just 
 after the war with Great Britain, we had a direct 
 tax under the General Government. The expense 
 of collecting it in 1816, when the net receipts were 
 only $3,560,651, was 5 3-16 per cent. 
 
 Nor have I stopped here. I have examined the 
 English documents. Their system of collecting 
 revenue by customs is more analogous to ours than 
 any other. The per centage which the collection 
 
5 
 
 of the customs in the United Kingdom cost in the 
 year ending the 5th of January, 1848—the last 
 returns which we have—was 5 19 20. For Great 
 Britain alone 5§; and excluding Ireland, Scotland, 
 and the small islands, where the revenue collected 
 is comparatively small, and where the preventive 
 force to guard against smuggling must be large, 
 the per centage is less than 5; and take London 
 alone, where the great amount of duties are col¬ 
 lected, it is less than 3. For many years prior to 
 1848, the cost of collection was about the same. 
 But to appreciate this comparison properly we 
 must advert to other facts. The United Kingdom 
 has a larger sea-coast than we have. Her sea- 
 coast, including the smaller adjacent isles, is three 
 thousand five hundred geographical miles. Our 
 Atlantic coast is one thousand five hundred, ex¬ 
 clusive of our islands, most of \Hiich, from the 
 shallowness of the water between ihem and the 
 main land, cannot be said to have properly more 
 than one side of sea-coast. The only important 
 one is Long Island; and to measure all sides of it, 
 would only increase the length about one hundred 
 and twenty miles. Our Gulf coast is one thou¬ 
 sand two hundred miles, and our Pacific one thou¬ 
 sand one hundred; altogether, three thousand eight 
 hundred miles—exceeding the English sea-coast 
 but three hundred miles. California and Oregon 
 are mostly uninhabited; and in view of the argu¬ 
 ment I am now prosecuting, viz: as to the neces¬ 
 sity of a preventive force to obstruct smuggling, 
 it may be thrown out of the estimate. Do so, and 
 include our lake frontier and our exposure, and 
 that of England would not vary a great deal, as 
 far as the ength of sea-coast is concerned. 
 
 Mr. BROOKS, (Mr. Bayly yielding the floor 
 for an interrogatory.) Does the gentleman from 
 Virginia assert that the Atlantic sea-coast is but 
 1,500 miles ? 
 
 Mr. BAYLY. I do. 
 
 Mr. BROOKS. The sea-coast of Maine alone 
 is 1,000 miles as he was informed by members 
 from that State. 
 
 Mr. BAYLY. I do not wish or mean to be dis¬ 
 courteous, but I must say the statement of the 
 gentleman is not only incorrect, but preposterous. 
 Why, sir, it is not 1,000 miles from the Capes of 
 Virginia to the northernmost port of Maine. 
 
 Mr. BROOKS. Did the gentleman from Vir¬ 
 ginia include the bays and rivers in his measure¬ 
 ment ? 
 
 Mr. BAYLY. 1 did not make the measurement. 
 
 I applied to Lieutenant Maury to measure the two 
 coasts for me. I applied to him, because l had the 
 greatest confidence in his science and accuracy; 
 and because I learned he had all the charts neces¬ 
 sary for the purpose, which 1 had not. His meas¬ 
 urement is along the general outlines from head¬ 
 land to headland, and is exclusive of bays, har¬ 
 bors, friths, creeks, and other indentations in both 
 countries. And here I beg to remark, that in this 
 respect the measurement is against us. Let any 
 one look at the maps, and they will see this. 
 Nothing can be more indented and irregular than 
 the coast of the United Kingdom, while ours is 
 comparatively otherwise. 
 
 As far, therefore, as the extent of sea-coast is 
 concerned, as large or even a larger preventive 
 force is necessary than with us. But this is not 
 the main consideration. The English tariff affords 
 the strongest inducement for smuggling. The ; 
 
 high duties, particularly upon tobacco, spirits, and 
 some other articles, make it necessary to keep up 
 the largest preventive force to prevent evasions 
 of the customs; while with us our tariff affords but 
 small comparative inducements to lead to it. There 
 public sentiment does not reprobate it as much as 
 here. The consequence is, in England the strong¬ 
 est preventive force in the form of cruisers, har¬ 
 bor vessels, and what they call a land-guard, is 
 necessary. They are compelled to.have a cordon 
 of officers constantly on the look out, for which, 
 with us, there is no necessity. Besides this, their 
 proximity to the Continent increases this necessity 
 on their part. Any small vessel can, at any time, 
 by catching a favorable wind, run over almost 
 unobserved. But with us only large sea-going 
 vessels are employed in bringing cargoes across 
 the Atlantic; their advent is always noticed, and 
 smuggling by them, under any circumstances, is 
 difficult. In such a case it is too easily detected 
 and proved, and then comes the penalty- Yet 
 with all this necessity for a large preventive 
 force upon their part, they collect their revenue 
 from customs at a little more than one-half of 
 what we are asked to expend. 
 
 Sir, all this is wrong. It ought to be corrected; 
 and if Congress will back me, it shall be corrected. 
 
 The great defect in the system is, we pay 
 too high salaries to officers in the employ of the 
 General Government. This is the case as con¬ 
 nected with the customs from the highest to the 
 lowest. We pay the collector of Boston $6,400: 
 which is double what any State officer of Massa¬ 
 chusetts receives. We pay the collector of New 
 York the same. The Governor, who is expected 
 to do the hospitalities of the State, receives $4,000. 
 The Chief Justice, who must have the highest 
 professional attainments, receives but $3,000. So 
 in Pennsylvania: the collector, $6,400, the Chief 
 Justice about $2,500. In Maryland, the collector 
 $6,400; the Governor $2,000, and Chief Justice 
 $3,000. And when we descend from the collector 
 through every grade, we find the same irregularity 
 till we come to the very barge-men—oarsmen — 
 who, in New York, receive $600 per annum. The 
 rate of compensation for all employment under 
 the General Government is so much greater than 
 under the State Governments and in the private 
 walks of life, that all eyes are turned here. The 
 tendency is to divert men from private pursuits 
 (which are at last most honorable and from em¬ 
 ployment under the State authorities, to look here) 
 —the great fountain of wealth and honor. This 
 increases the tendency of public opinion to regard 
 the States as inferior corporations, instead of in¬ 
 dependent sovereignties, and tends to centre every¬ 
 thing in the Federal head, and leads to consolida¬ 
 tion. This Government is the idol which every 
 aspirant worships. Besides this, it adds asperity 
 to our political contests. So far from there being 
 contests for principles, they are contests for place. 
 Bring down your Federal salaries to a grade equal 
 to that which prevails in our State Governments 
 and in private pursuits, and you will not only save 
 a vast amount of money to this Government, but 
 you will do what is more—you will reduce its 
 patronage, already much too great, and you will 
 have the public service better performed. I do 
 not doubt but that you can get a better collector 
 in New York for $3,000 than for $6,400. The 
 one would take the office as a plain business man, 
 
6 
 
 to <!o its duties, and without ambitious or party 
 views. The other would seek it for its emolu¬ 
 ments and political patronage. In the one case, it 
 would be filled by a practical man of business; in 
 the other, by a managing politician. The charac¬ 
 ter of each, under the one system or the other, 
 would be stamped upon all under them. With 
 not much more than half the expense, l maintain 
 the cheap system would be the most efficient. I 
 do not recommend that the salaries of those whose 
 salaries are already low should be reduced. By 
 no means. I would strike at those who receive 
 the exorbitant salaries. I would harpoon the big 
 fish, not the small. I would fly at high game. 
 
 I know it is supposed that the Secretary of the 
 Treasury cannot touch these. It is said their sal¬ 
 aries are regulated by law. I do not concur in 
 this opinion. When the law of the 3d of March, 
 1849, passed, requiring the Treasury Department 
 to reduce the expenses of collecting the revenue to 
 $1,560,000, it necessarily gave the Secretary the 
 authority to do it. His discretion as to the mode 
 of reduction was unlimited. Suppose the salaries 
 of all the officers of the customs had been fixed 
 by law, prior to the act of the 3d of March, 1849, 
 could it be said that, therefore, it was inoperative? 
 that the last law would be controlled and nullified 
 by those which had preceded it? I do not know in 
 what code of laws such rules of construction are 
 to be found. Certainly in none with which I am 
 acquainted. 
 
 Tins brings me to the circular of the Secretary 
 of the Treasury. That circular, Mr. Chairman, 
 public duty requires me to say, 1 consider a pal¬ 
 pable violation of law. I do not wish to say any 
 thing harsh of the Secretary of the Treasury. My 
 acquaintance, with him is slight; but such as it is, 
 has made a very favorable impression upon me to¬ 
 wards him personally. But public duty requires 
 me to express the opinion 1 entertain. The law 
 to which I have referred contemplated the reduc¬ 
 tion of the expense of collecting ihe revenue. Its 
 object is stamped, in letters too plain to be mis¬ 
 read, upon its very face. It was to reduce the ex¬ 
 pense of collecting the revenue To relieve whom ? 
 The Government alone? By no means; but the 
 country! The Secrelary, however, in some cases, 
 shifts the burden from the Government to the 
 shoulders of the merchant and importer. By his 
 circular, and without authority, he has virtually in¬ 
 creased the tariff, when, I am quite sure the coun¬ 
 try is not willing that Congress shall do it, who 
 alone have the power. I am told he has lately 
 issued a second, dismissing many officers. I have 
 not seen it, and cannot, therefore, say a word 
 about it. I am now speaking of the first one issued. 
 I repeat, the object of the law of the 3d of March, 
 1849, was to reduce the cost of collecting the rev 
 enue to the public; and if it remain the same, 
 whether it be paid by the merchant or the Gov¬ 
 ernment, to that public it makes no difference, for 
 at last it has to bear the burden. A.id the shifting 
 it from one to the other does not meet the object 
 of the law. 
 
 Mr. SEDDON. Will my colleague and friend 
 inform me with whom the law of March, 1849, 
 originated? I ask for information 
 
 Mr. BAYLY. I take pleasure in answering 
 my friend. In opening the debate I had not in¬ 
 tended to refer to that. But as 1 anticipated that I 
 might be called upon to refer to it in reply, I am 
 
 prepared to answer his question. It was recom¬ 
 mended by Mr. Walker, late Secretary of the 
 Treasury, as long ago as March, 1846. On the 
 16th of that month he wrote to the Committee of 
 Ways and Means this letter: 
 
 Treasury Department, March 16, 1846. 
 
 Sir : In my letter of the 23d of February last to you, the 
 statement was made that the expense of collecting the rev¬ 
 enue could be reduced $537,864 below the expenditure of 
 the last fiscal year. To insure this result, I respectfully re¬ 
 commend that a clause be inserted in the new tariff bill, 
 limiting the expenses of collecting the revenue under that 
 bill to a Sum not exceeding$1,520,000. 
 
 The sum expended in collecting the revenue is now al¬ 
 most exclusively within the discretion of the Secretary of 
 the Treasury. The payments are frequently made merely 
 upon his written order, without the intervention of those 
 checks appertaining to the liquidation of other accounts, 
 and the payments are not regulated by specific appropria¬ 
 tions made by law, as in other cases. In my opinion the 
 expenses incident to the collection of the revenue should be 
 regulated by specific appropriations, and the payments made 
 subject to the checks applicable to the settlement of other 
 accounts. 
 
 This great reform can only be introduced by the legisla¬ 
 tion of Congress; but if you think proper to require the 
 cooperation of this department, it will be cheerfully granted. 
 
 Most respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 R. J. YVALKER, Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Hon. James J. McKay. 
 
 Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means. 
 
 Again: On the 25th of May, 1846, he wrote the 
 following: 
 
 Treasury Department, May 25, 1846. 
 
 Sir: Having been informed by you that the*suggestions 
 made in my letter of the 16th of March last, so far as re¬ 
 quired the limitation of the expenses incident to the collec¬ 
 tion of the revenue, and the regulation of the same by law, 
 met the approbaiion of the Committee of Ways and Means, 
 1 enclose a provision for carrying these suggestions into ef¬ 
 fect. 
 
 This provision, it is believed, should be appended, as a 
 new section to the bill reported to the committee for redu¬ 
 cing the duties on imports. 
 
 If that bill should not become a law, and the provisions of 
 the present tariff remain unaltered, the expenses incident to 
 the collection of the revenue, including drawbacks, fishing 
 bounties and allowances, cannot, with safety, be limited to 
 the sums now proposed by this department. 
 
 I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 
 
 R. J. WALKER, Secretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Hon. James J. McKay, 
 
 Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means. 
 
 Be it further enacted , That the amount to be disbursed in 
 payment of the expenses incidental to the collection of the 
 revenue shall not exceed in the whole, for the fiscal year 
 ending the 3l)ih of June, 1847, or for any fiscal year succeed¬ 
 ing. the sum of one million five hundred and twenty thou¬ 
 sand dollars, and that the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
 have full power to diminish any branch or item of said ex¬ 
 penditures so as to bring the aggregate amount within the 
 limitation above mentioned, and that hereafter the whole 
 gross amount of the public moneys, by whomsoever received 
 or collected, shall be paid into the treasury ; and all expen¬ 
 ses incident to the collection of tiie revenue, not exceeding 
 the amount above stated, shall be paid out of any moneys 
 iti the treasury not otherwise appropriated, and the accounts 
 thereof shad be rendered to the proper accounting officers 
 of the treasury for adjustment by them. 
 
 The recommendation was subsequently renewed. 
 But under the difficulty of getting bills through 
 Congress, the bill to carry these recommendations 
 into effect, did not pass this House until the 15th 
 of March, 1848. That was before any nomina¬ 
 tions for the Presidency were made, end when of 
 course few anticipated that this Administration 
 would come into power. 
 
 The bill did not pass the Senate until the 3d of 
 March, 1849. But before it passed, it came to 
 this House with amendments, where, if it had 
 been disapproved, it could have been defeated. 
 
 Before I conclude, I have a word to say about 
 ' the warehousing system—not by way of argument 
 
to sustain our opinions, but for the information of 
 the House, to state them. 
 
 I believe that the Committee of Ways and 
 Means are decidedly in favor of that system; but 
 with some modifications. I speak with confidence 
 of the Democratic part of the committee. We 
 think it of great benefit to every industrial pursuit 
 in the country—the agricultural, the mechanical, 
 the Commercial, and the manufacturing. We are 
 satisfied, the country will never surrender it. But 
 we think the plan of public warehouses ought to 
 be abolished, except so far as to provide ware¬ 
 house room for unclaimed goods. We do not 
 think that the Government ought to engage in the 
 warehousing business any further than is indis¬ 
 pensable, any more than in any other business to 
 which individual enterprise is equal. Let us 
 open free competition in this business, under 
 proper safeguards and regulations, and that com¬ 
 petition itself will reduce the cost of warehousing 
 to the lowest possible amount, to the relief of com¬ 
 merce, and without a tax upon the Government or 
 any body else. The system with us was a new 
 one, and doubtless we have much to learn in re¬ 
 spect to it. In the first instance some mistakes 
 may have been committed—mistakes against 
 which human foresight could not guard. But 
 upon the whole it is a wise one, and with such 
 modifications as experience may suggest, it will 
 be cherished. 
 
 On the 8th of February, the subject being again 
 under consideration, Mr. BAYLY rose and ad¬ 
 dressed the House as follows: 
 
 I shall not, like the gentleman from Massachu¬ 
 setts, [Mr. Winthrop,] promise to confine myself, 
 in the remarks I have to submit, entirely to the 
 proposition before us; for, if l were to do so, I fear 
 I should redeem it but little better than he did, who 
 had scarcely made the promise before he launched 
 into a general denunciation of the tariff of 1846, the 
 ruin it was inflicting upon the country, and “the 
 fearful ” amount of revenue it was bringing into 
 the Treasury. But I will promise to wander from 
 the proposition before us no further than is ab¬ 
 solutely necessary for a proper reply to the argu¬ 
 ments which have been submitted on the other 
 side. 
 
 I have listened with great attention to this de¬ 
 bate. The defect of the arguments of the gentle¬ 
 man from Ohio, [Mr. Vinton,] the gentleman from 
 Massachusetts, [Mr. Wintiirop,] the gentleman 
 from New York, [Mr. Brooks,] and the gentle¬ 
 man from South Carolina, [Mr. Holmes,]— for the 
 same defect pervades them all—is, they assume 
 the very point in debate. They all start out with 
 the main proposition, that no more was expended 
 in collecting the revenue in 1848 and 1849 than 
 was indispensable; and assuming this to be true, 
 they argue to show that Mr. Meredith asks for no 
 more than is absolutely necessary. Their main 
 proposition is precisely what 1 deny, and the truth 
 of which 1 will attempt to disprove. If I succeed in 
 this, with the foundation of the argument the whole 
 superstructure will fall. In 1848, the per centage 
 for collecting the revenue was six and near a half 
 —in 1849, it was upwards of seven. This rate of 
 expenditure, which is nearly double of the average 
 per centage expended in collecting the customs 
 from the formation of the Constitution to this time, 
 
 I attempted to show was much too great; that in¬ 
 stead of the per centage for collecting growing as 
 our commerce and revenue increased, the precise 
 reverse ought to oe the case, as the per centage for 
 the collection of a large sum ought to be less than 
 a small one. I showed that in the States where a 
 system of direct taxes prevail, (always supposed to 
 be much more expensive, as the sums are received 
 in small amounts and upon personal application, 
 than that of indirect taxes, where the sums are re¬ 
 ceived in large amounts and at specified places,) not 
 more than five per cent, was expended in collection. 
 I showed that during the existence of the direct 
 tax, in 1816, when only $3,560,651 were collected 
 from the whole of our broad expanse of territory, 
 the expense of collecting was but 5 3-16 per cent. 
 I also showed that in the United Kingdom, where 
 economy in expenditure is no part of their system 
 —as surely it ought to be with us—the expense of 
 collecting their customs was for the year ending 
 January 8, 1848, 5 19-20 per cent.. In Great Brit¬ 
 ain alone it was five and a half; in England alone 
 less than five; and in London less than three. I 
 showed that, in consequence of her insular and 
 exposed situation, her proximity to the continent, 
 and the great inducements held out for smuggling, 
 by the very high rate of duty upon many articles, 
 she was compelled to keep up an enormous pre¬ 
 ventive force in the shape of cruisers, harbor 
 vessels, land and water guard, which, from our 
 different condition, in the particulars referred to, 
 are unnecessary with us. This item alone amount¬ 
 ed, in the United Kingdom, in the year 1848, to 
 the large sum of c£470,684, or upwards of two 
 millions three hundred thousand dollars. From 
 all this, I inferred it was impossible that eight or 
 nine per cent, was necessary to collect our cus¬ 
 toms* ,, 
 
 The only gentleman who attempted to answer 
 any part of this argument was the gentleman from 
 Ohio, [Mr. Vinton.] He said that I was mis¬ 
 taken in my estimate of the cost of collecting the 
 customs in England; that, under the head of ex¬ 
 penses of collecting the revenue from customs, 
 they do not .embrace all the charges that fall under 
 that head in this country; and that, if you include 
 there all the expenses charged here, the expense 
 of collection there would not probably fall short 
 of seven and a half per cent. And when requested 
 by me to specify the items referred to by him he 
 named their warehouse expenses, which that year, 
 as he said, were some one hundred and sixty 
 odd thousand pounds, and which in England are 
 not charged to the expense of collecting the cus¬ 
 toms. And he also referred to some other items, 
 the amount of which he did not state. 
 
 Now, sir, it is true there are some items which 
 with us are charged to the cost of collection, which 
 are not so charged in England; but it is also true 
 that there are charges in that country to the cost 
 of collection which are not charged with us; and if 
 we exclude these items so as to make the compari 
 son perfectly fair, so far from its diminishing the 
 disparity of expenditure between us and Great 
 Britain, it will greatly increase it. This struck 
 me at the first examination I made of this subject, 
 and it occurred to me to recast the calculation. 
 But I thought I should expose myself to just criti¬ 
 cism, if I undertook to recast the calculation made 
 by the British Government itself of the cost of col¬ 
 lecting their revenue. So I took it as I found it, 
 
8 
 
 made by them to my hand. But, since the gen¬ 
 tleman from Ohio has seen fit to go into this mat¬ 
 ter, I must follow him. And, Mr. Chairman, the 
 gentleman must excuse me for saying that, in this 
 part of his argument, I do not think he displayed a 
 candor becoming his high character and position. 
 
 He spoke with the English document in his 
 hand. With this source of authentic information 
 before him, he said that if you included in the 
 English calculation all the expenses charged here, 
 the charges of collection there would not probably 
 fall short of 7| per cent. Did not fairness demand 
 that if he added to the English sum items charged 
 here and not there, he should at the same time 
 have deducted the items included in their estimates, 
 and not in ours? But this he did not do; and as 
 he did not, 1 beg leave to do it for him; so that the 
 committee may see whether a fair comparison will 
 make the case any better for the gentleman. 
 
 In the first place, he is mistaken in saying that 
 the expense of warehouses was some one hundred 
 and sixty odd thousand pounds. On the contrary, 
 the item of <£162,000, to which he refers, includes 
 quarantine as well as warehouse establishments. 
 If he had looked further into the document, he 
 would have found that the expense of warehousing, 
 including warehouse-keepers, lockers, rents, taxes, 
 tithes, &c., amounted to £125,930 12s., and not to 
 one hundred and sixty odd thousand pounds, as 
 he states it. As we pay neither taxes, tithes, nor 
 insurance, as the British do, this amount ought to 
 be still reduced. But I have not the precise data 
 to doit; and therefore I let the item stand. And 
 as we charge the expense of warehousing to the 
 cost of collection, I admit it ought to be added to 
 that in Great Britain to make the comparison fair. 
 But then we must deduct charges there which do 
 not exist here. And they are numerous, viz: Al¬ 
 lowances for special service and travellingexpenses, 
 £22,063 14s. 4d; taxes, tithes, &c., £24,979 11s.; 
 law charges, £6,330 18s.; superannuation allow¬ 
 ances—in other words pensions—£129,236 9s. Id.; 
 allowances for offices abolished, and compensation 
 to officers for loss of fees—in England, when they 
 abolish an office theydo notdeprivethpofficerof his 
 salary,it seems,£24,032; other payments, consist¬ 
 ing of many miscellaneous items, such as pensions 
 to widows and children, &c., none of which are 
 chargeable to collection here, £23,556 12s.; making 
 altogether £230,137 4s. 10d., from which deduct 
 the cost of warehousing, and the difference is up¬ 
 wards of half a million of dollars; and to that ex¬ 
 tent making the comparison more unfavorable to 
 us. 
 
 This is not all. The year 1848 was an unfa¬ 
 vorable one, so far as my argument is concerned, 
 it was the year of the potato rot, when the Brit¬ 
 ish ports were thrown open to the free admission 
 of articles of human food. The importations of 
 such articles were enormous. The consequence 
 was, the revenue was diminished and the cost of 
 collection increased. The very year before, the 
 cost of collection was in the United Kingdom 
 5 11-20, and in Great Britain alone 5 4-20. 
 
 But I will not press this part of the argument 
 further, for 1 agree with the gentleman from 
 Georgia, [Mr. Toombs,] that a comparison with 
 ourselves in former years is ajuster criterion by 
 which to judge of the necessity for the high ex¬ 
 penditure existing at present. When I addressed 
 the committee before, I had not had time to go 
 
 minutely into the calculation. Since then, my 
 friend from Missouri, [Mr. Green,] has gone 
 into a minute calculation on this subject, and with 
 his permission I avail myself of the result of his 
 labor. He has calculated the cost of collecting 
 our revenue from customs from 1792 to 1848. 
 The cost of collection was, from 1792 to 1800, 2 
 6-10 per cent. From that period to 1812, it 
 was 3 per cent. The two years of the war are 
 left out. From 1815 to 1830 it was 3 5-10. 
 From 1831 to 1848, 6 4-10. Average for 56 
 years, 4 2-10. Thus it will be seen that the 
 per centage of collection has been constantly 
 growing, when, considering how our revenue has 
 increased, it ought to have diminished, as the per 
 centage for collecting a large sum is less than for 
 collecting a small one. To illustrate: In 1815., 
 when the receipts were $39,000,000, the per cent¬ 
 age was 1§, while in 1817, when the receipts had 
 fallen to $22,000,000, it had risen to 4. Still, with 
 these facts staring gentlemen in the face, we are 
 told that when our revenue has grown till the 
 gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Winthrop] 
 considers it “ fearful,” near twice as large a per 
 centage is necessary as was expended for 56 years, 
 and three times as large as was expended up to 
 1830. Sir, l do not credit it; and all the clamor 
 of all the custom-house officers in the world will 
 not convince me of it. I deny that any such ex 
 penditure as was incurred in 1848 was necessary, 
 or any such as it is now asked may be allowed 
 should be tolerated. 
 
 I know it has been said that, with our revenue, 
 our country has grown and new districts have 
 been established. A few new districts have 
 been established—none of them causing much ex¬ 
 penditure—but others have been abolished. The 
 facts prove that the expenses of the custom-house 
 establishment have grown much faster than the 
 increase of business, and in a ratio much larger 
 than the extension of it. In 1815 the expense of 
 collection was but $476,007. In 1848, $2,132,636. 
 In New York alone it is nearly double what it was 
 for the whole country in 1815. Will any one say 
 that the collection districts have multiplied to the 
 same extent ? 
 
 But this is not all. Let us look into some other 
 facts. There are connected with the custom-house 
 at Boston one hundred and sixty-seven persons. 
 The foreign arrivals in that port in 1848 were 3,009; 
 or on an average of about eight a day. I know 
 the arrivals are irregular—some days many more 
 than an average, and on others less. Of these ar¬ 
 rivals more than half are of schooners, and mostly 
 from the British provinces, laden principally with 
 coal, wood, plaster, &c., and require very little at¬ 
 tention from inspectors. Now is it possible that 
 one hundred and sixty-seven officers are required 
 to attend to the discharge of this number of vessels ? 
 There are fifty-eight day inspectors and twenty 
 night inspectors—makingseventy-eight inspectors. 
 Suppose the arrivals in Boston were ten a day, or 
 twenty, or even fifty, still, where is the necessity of 
 all this force? Will any one believe it to be ne¬ 
 cessary ? Sir, a gentleman writing to me from 
 Boston explains this thing in part. He says: “A 
 ‘few weeks since I met one of the inspectors 
 ‘ walking about the streets at his leisure, when a 
 ‘ large number of aids (as they term officers who 
 ‘ are employed in violation of law) were under pay; 
 
 ‘ and he told me he had then under his charge a 
 
9 
 
 ‘coal vessel from Nova Scotia, and that he had had 
 ‘ nothing else to attend to for eighteen days. He 
 ‘ told me, also, that the only service he had to per- 
 ‘ form during all that time was, to go on board the 
 ‘ day she arrived and lock up her hatches, and that 
 ‘ he would have nothing else to do till the captain 
 ‘ sold his cargo.” 
 
 Mr. WINTHROP. Will the honorable mem¬ 
 ber give us the name of the writer of that letter ? 
 
 Mr. BAYLY. I prefer not to do it. It is from 
 a gentleman for whose respectability I vouch. 
 
 Mr. WINTHROP. Give us the name of the 
 officer, then. 
 
 Mr. BAYLY. My correspondent does not give 
 me the name of the officer. My correspondent is 
 a gentleman of intelligence and respectability, as 
 the gentleman would vouch, if I could give him 
 the name. But I cannot do it. I do not wish to 
 bring about his ears the whole Boston custom¬ 
 house. 
 
 I will state one other fact. At the very time the 
 New York papers were attacking us for not grant¬ 
 ing at once and without inquiry all the Secretary 
 of the Treasury asks of us, and complaining of a 
 deficiency of force in the New York custom¬ 
 house, 1 saw about this Capitol, in the lobbies 
 and at reporters’ desks of the two Houses, and 
 probably writing those very attacks, one of the 
 employees of that custom-house. Plow is it, if 
 there be a deficiency of force, the custom-house 
 officers can find time to be the chief agents in all 
 political meetings and to attend party conven¬ 
 tions? Gentlemen politicians may say what they 
 please, but my table is groaning under the letters 
 received from gentlemen in the large cities, of the 
 highest respectability, expressing their disgust at 
 these things. 
 
 The gentleman from New York [Mr. Brooks] 
 insists that the change which has taken place in 
 the description of our shipping, makes a larger 
 force in the custom-houses necessary than former¬ 
 ly. He says that since the introduction of sea¬ 
 going steamers, merchants make more frequent 
 importations and in smaller packages. Doubtless 
 there is something in this; but it is more than 
 counterbalanced by changes in other respects. 
 Every one knows that the size of our sail vessels, 
 engaged in foreign commerce, has been greatly en¬ 
 larged of late. Instead of ships, of three or four 
 hundred tons, we now have them of twelve and 
 fifteen hundred; and other sea-going vessels have 
 been enlarged in like proportion. The number of 
 inspectors required for the same amount of import¬ 
 ation, when it is made in large vessels, is much 
 less than when in small; and as far as this argu¬ 
 ment is concerned, I think it is against the gen¬ 
 tleman. 
 
 Gentlemen tell us a great deal about the neces¬ 
 sity of a large custom-house force to prevent 
 smuggling. Sir, I do not put much faith in this. 
 Our tariff affords but small inducement to smug¬ 
 gling, in comparison with the risk incurred. But 
 let us look at the matter a little in this light. In 
 the State of Rhode Island, not much larger in ter¬ 
 ritory than some of the counties of Virginia—if, 
 indeed, as large—there are fifty-five persons con¬ 
 nected with her custom-houses. That State is situ¬ 
 ated between Massachusetts and New York, and 
 not very far from the great emporium. Virginia 
 has a large sea-coast; her territory is separated by 
 the Chesapeake—the Mediterranean of America. 
 
 It is perforated by the majestic rivers Potomac, 
 Rappahannock, York, and the James, running 
 into her very heart. Yet we have connected with 
 the custom-houses but fifty-one officers, and they 
 are enough. There is no smuggling there, not¬ 
 withstanding the great facilities which present 
 themselves, growing out of our immense water 
 line and the few custom-house officers. But I 
 carry my comparison further. There are connect¬ 
 ed with the custom-houses of Massachusetts two 
 hundred and fifty-five officers; while there are con¬ 
 nected with the custom-houses of both Virginia 
 and Maryland, with their great disproportionate 
 territory, but one hundred and fifty-three. 
 
 Mr. CHANDLER inquired if the amount col¬ 
 lected in Boston was not larger than that collected 
 in Norfolk. 
 
 Mr. BAYLY. Certainly it is. But I am 
 speaking now of the necessity which we are told 
 exists of a large force to prevent smuggling. 
 
 Mr. WINTHROP. What is the expense of 
 collecting the revenue in Boston? 
 
 Mr. BAYLY. It is not quite five per cent. It 
 lacks a very small fraction. 
 
 Mr. WINTHROP. It is less than the same 
 expense in England. 
 
 Mr. BAYLY. The gentleman says that it is 
 less than in England. I will inform him—to 
 make the comparison more equal—that it is about 
 double the same expense in London. 
 
 Mr. STEVENS. What is it in Norfolk? 
 
 Mr. BAYLY. In Norfolk it is, as the Secre¬ 
 tary of the Treasury informs us, $28,505, which 
 is more than the receipts. But of that $17,564 is 
 the expense of the revenue cutter which guards 
 the whole Chesapeake of Virginia and the mouths 
 of all our large rivers. The receipts are $23,528, 
 and the expenditures what I have stated. But I 
 will also inform the gentleman that at the three 
 ports of Nantucket, Barnstable, and Edgartown— 
 all in Massachusetts—the expenses are $14,958, 
 and the receipts $1,128. There is not attached to 
 either of those places a cutter to swell the expense 
 If you take the whole State of Massachusetts, th& 
 expenses of collection are very large; but I cannot 
 state the precise per centage, as I have not made 
 the calculation. But it is much beyond any ne¬ 
 cessity. 
 
 Now, how is all this answered ? We are told 
 that Mr. Walker said, in his annual report of De¬ 
 cember, 1847, that he had made all the reductions 
 of expenditure consistent with the good of the 
 public service. But gentlemen ought to do Mr. 
 Walker justice. They ought to take all he said 
 on that subject together. In each of his three let¬ 
 ters to the Committee of Ways and Means, bear¬ 
 ing date respectively on the 16th of March 
 and the 25th of May, 1846, and the 8th of Feb¬ 
 ruary, 1847, he stated explicitly that, to enable 
 him to make all the reductions which were desira¬ 
 ble, the passage of a law was indispensable. It is 
 true he said he could curtail much without the in¬ 
 terposition of Congress; but in his letter of the 
 8th of February, 1847, he said : 
 
 “ It will be perceived, by reference to the communications 
 of the 16th of March and 25th of May last, that this depart¬ 
 ment then entertained and expressed the opinion, 1st, that 
 under the new tariff the expenses of collecting the revenue 
 might be reduced to the sum of $1,520,000 ; 2d, that these 
 expenses should be rendered subject to appropriations made 
 by law ; 3d, that an uct of Congress was then deemed neces¬ 
 sary to carry these great reforms fully into effect; 4th, that the 
 
10 
 
 propriety of embracing such an enactment in the tariff of 
 1846 was suggested to the committee, and a section sub¬ 
 mitted for that purpose; 5th, that it was believed this great 
 reduction could not take place to the full extent, unless ac¬ 
 companied by the enactment of the tariff of 1846. This act 
 having gone into effect on the 1st December last, it is be¬ 
 lieved by this department that these great reforms may be 
 carried into full effect; and, with the cooperation of Con¬ 
 gress, the sum, of half a million of dollars a year may be 
 saved to the Treasury , without any detriment to the public 
 service .” 
 
 Gentlemen, in construing the report, ought to tlo 
 it in connection with this letter of the same year; and 
 when he says that he has made all the reductions 
 he could make, he must be understood to mean 
 without the cooperation of Congress, which he 
 deemed necessary to carry these great reforms 
 fully into effect.” 
 
 Sir, without Mr. Walker’s assurance to that 
 effect I never doubted that it was impossible for him 
 to make the necessary reforms without the coopera¬ 
 tion of Congress. He might write circulars till 
 doomsday and he would not effect much. All of 
 the collectors knew quite as well as Mr. Walker 
 did that, till the enactment of the act of 3d March, 
 1849, there was no limitation of law upon these 
 expenditures. He would issue a circular, for in¬ 
 stance, saying to the collectors, the expenditures 
 in your houses are too great—they must be re¬ 
 duced. The collector would not find it very pleasant 
 to set about the business of curtailment. It is a 
 disagreeable business. Men like patronage, and 
 dislike raising a hornet’s nest about their heads ; 
 and most collectors would find it easier to give 
 plausible excuses for not making reductions than 
 to do it. But suppose the Secretary should have 
 it in his power to say, the law allows me but so 
 much; if you expend in your department more 
 than a particular sum, your disbursements will not 
 be allowed at the Treasury : my life for it, the re¬ 
 ductions would be made. And if there was no 
 hope of frightening Congress into measures by 
 making the reduction in the most oppressive way, 
 I have no doubt they could be made in a manner 
 not at all detrimental to the public service, But 
 there were extraordinary charges upon Mr. 
 Walker in 1848 which do not now exist. There 
 was the debenture system, abolished by the act of 
 3d March, 1849—the heavy importations of that 
 year—and the war. The revenue-cutters were 
 employed in that war; and, although they were 
 armed, equipped, and employed as vessels of war, 
 they were supported from the cost of collecting the 
 revenue. 
 
 Mr. EVANS, of Maryland. Will the gentle¬ 
 man from Virginia allow me to interrupt him ? 
 
 Mr. BAYLY. No; I prefer not. I cannot get 
 through with what I have to say in an hour. 
 
 Mr. EVANS. I have the facts. 
 
 Mr. BAYLY. Well, let us have the facts. 
 
 Mr. EVANS proposed to read an extract from 
 the report of Mr. Walker, late Secretary of the 
 Treasury, on the warehouse system. 
 
 Mr. BAYLY. I know all about that; and I 
 presume the House does. I cannot give way to 
 allow the gentleman to read what we are all 
 familiar with. 
 
 The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Vinton] has 
 given us his history of the passage of the law of 
 the 3d of March last. 1 do not subscribe to the 
 truth of it; and I must add some important chap¬ 
 ters. It originated with Mr. Walker, in his letter 
 of the 16th March, 1846. It was perfected and 
 
 carried through Congress mainly by General 
 McKay. On the 10th of August, 1846, he laid 
 the foundation of it by passing through this 
 House the following resolutions: 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury cause to be 
 prepared and communicated to this House, at the com¬ 
 mencement of the next session, a statement of the cost of 
 collecting the revenue from customs for the year ending the 
 30th June 1846, arranging the several items of expenditure 
 under distinct and appropriate heads. 
 
 Resolved, further. That the said Secretary also communi¬ 
 cate to this House, at the same time, estimates of the sums 
 of money which will be necessary to defray the expenses of 
 collecting the revenue from customs for the latter half of 
 the present year, and for the next fiscal year, arranging the 
 same under separate and appropriate heads, so that Con¬ 
 gress may, if it think proper, bring this branch of (he publio 
 expenditure more within its control than it is under the ex¬ 
 isting law ; and that he report the expense of collecting the 
 revenue in each collection district separately. 
 
 Resolved, further, That the heads of the several Executive 
 Departments be and they are hereby required to inform this 
 House, at the commencement of the next session, whether 
 any and what changes can be made in the several branches 
 of the public service, by which greater economy and more 
 or equal efficiency may be secured in their administration. 
 
 The democrats had a large majority in this body. 
 Nevertheless these resolutions, calling for the data 
 upon which to predicate this great reform, did not 
 pass without resistance. The vote upon their 
 passage was nearly a strict party vote. Every 
 whig who voted, except three, voted against them, 
 and every democrat for them. Their motive for 
 opposition to the law of March last was different 
 then in part from what it is now. They had all 
 predicted with great confidence that the tariff act 
 of ’46 would not yield revenue enough to support 
 the Government, and they resisted retrenchments 
 of expenditure to make good their prophecy. The 
 call thus made was answered by Mr. Walker in 
 detailed estimates. The expenditures in the year 
 1846 had been $2,006,043. He proposed a cur¬ 
 tailment of $500,000. In his letter accompanying 
 the estimates, he said: 
 
 “ It is believed by the department that these great reforms 
 may be carried into full effect, and, with the cooperation of 
 Congress, the sum of half a million of dollars a year may be 
 saved to the treasury, without any detriment to the public ser¬ 
 vice. To effect this object the department would propose thaL 
 under the head of ‘ inspectors, &,c.,’in table A, the amount 
 should be reduced from $966,397 98 to $860,000; under the 
 head of 4 appraisers and appraisments,’ from $164,435 02 to 
 $140,000; under the head of‘ revenue boats,’from $83,871 06 
 to $50,000; under the head of ‘ revenue-cutters,’ from 
 $497,855 01 to $200,000; under the head of ‘ contingent ex¬ 
 penses,’ from $101,404 12 to $90,000; and the item of$6,583 27 
 for ‘extra clerk hire,’ be entirely discontinued in future; 
 making a total reduction, as compared with the last fiseai 
 year, of $474,546, and of $526,367 compared with the year 
 preceding.” 
 
 The Committee of Ways and Means took him 
 at his word, and deducted $500,000 from the ex¬ 
 penditures of 1846, and thus arrived at the sum 
 appropriated by the act of the 3d March last, viz: 
 the sum of $1,560,000. And here the answer is 
 given to the assertion that the law in question was 
 passed in haste and without estimates. On the 
 contrary, it was based upon the most carefully 
 prepared estimates. The bill passed this House 
 the 16th of March, 1848. In the Senate it was 
 suggested that it repealed the fishing bounties, and 
 Mr. Atherton reported an amendment to remove 
 all doubt on that subject. This was the only 
 amendment proposed at that time, except one to 
 insert the words “ together w T ith such sums as, 
 under the laws, are paid into the Treasury for 
 drayage, cartage, labor, and storage.” The bill 
 was not reached in the Senate at that session. At 
 
11 
 
 the next session it again came up. It was sug¬ 
 gested that the passage of the law as it stood would 
 vacate the bonds of all the collectors. To obviate 
 this objection Mr. Hunter proposed an amend¬ 
 ment; also one concerning depositing goods in 
 warehouses, not affecting the main object of the 
 bill, and another altering the dates, which the 
 lapse of time made proper. The bill, as amended, 
 came to this House, passed, and became a law. 
 During all this time, in neither House of Congress 
 was one word said about the sum allowed being 
 too small, or any amendment offered, except the 
 one of Mr. Atherton, concerning cartage, &c., 
 to increase the amount. Thus we see that the 
 law was predicated upon estimates, and deliber¬ 
 ately passed by the two Houses of Congress. 
 And, in its passage, we have the deliberate ex¬ 
 pression of opinion by Congress, that the sum 
 spent in 1846 was half a million too much. 
 
 Before quitting this subject, I must do a gentle¬ 
 man (Gen. McKay) justice who has been assailed, 
 
 1 think, in a most uncalled for manner by the gen¬ 
 tleman from South Carolina, [Mr. Holmes.] He 
 compared him to an owl that could see mice holes 
 in the dark, but became blind in the light of day. 
 And who is the man thus spoken of in this House? 
 For many years he was the chairman of its most 
 important committee. In the obscure labors of 
 that committee, he toiled till his strength gave 
 way under them. He did more to carry the tariff 
 act of 1846 through this House than any other 
 member of it—that act which repealed the tariff 
 of 1842, denounced by the gentleman’s constitu¬ 
 ents as more oppressive than the tariff of 1828, 
 which they resisted to the point of nullification. 
 He carried that act through this House which is 
 filling our coffers with wealth and spreading pros¬ 
 perity through the land. And in doing this, he 
 sometimes had not the aid of the gentleman’s 
 presence. He is now reposing from his labors 
 upon his hard-earned fame in unambitious re¬ 
 tirement. And this is the man who is com¬ 
 pared by the gentleman from South Carolina 
 [Mr. Holmes] with an owl! Common gratitude, 
 if nothing else, ought to have restrained him. I 
 heard the gentleman with pain, and I have no 
 doubt, when in a less dispassionate moment he 
 reads his own words, he will regret they were 
 uttered. 
 
 I return from this digression. The gentleman 
 from Ohio, [Mr. Vinton,] assuming that the rate 
 of expenditure in 1848 was not too great, main¬ 
 tains that the appropriation now proposed is less, 
 as it excludes the sums paid for cartage, storage, 
 and labor, and therefore much too small. But it 
 includes what is received under those heads. 
 The Government first pays the cartage, labor, 
 and storage; but in many cases it is refunded by 
 the merchant. What the precise difference is, he 
 does not inform us, as most surely he ought, con¬ 
 sidering his position and his relations to the Sec¬ 
 retary of the Treasury. In the absence of spe¬ 
 cific information, which the Secretary in his letter, 
 informing me of the errors of his estimate upon 
 which my first speech was based, does not give, I 
 a precise calculation cannot be made. But the ! 
 gentleman from Ohio supposes what is paid may ; 
 be $250,000 or $300,000; but he does not inform 
 us what is received back. In this case, as in that 
 of his estimate about the British expenditure, he 
 deducts from one side when it suits him, without ' 
 
 making the proper deductions from the other. He 
 makes no reduction for the expenses incurred in 
 1848, which are now saved by the repeal of the 
 debenture system; none for the expense entailed 
 upon the revenue service, in consequence of using 
 the cutters as vessels of war; none for the reduc¬ 
 tion made by Mr. Meredith in June last, in that 
 branch of the service. He reduced the force then 
 one-third. I presume he made his reductions in 
 the most costly branches. If so, the reduction in 
 money was more than one-third. But put it at 
 one-third, and here is a saving of ninety odd 
 thousand dollars. Then the gentleman leaves 
 out all received for cartage, labor, and storage, 
 which the proposition before us appropriates. 
 These items altogether must greatly exceed the 
 one to which the gentleman refers. Include these, 
 and the reduction which ought to be made upon 
 the Atlantic, and the Secretary will have more 
 than enough, with proper economy, for the ex¬ 
 penses in Oregon and California. 1 think gentle¬ 
 men greatly exaggerate the difficulties there. They 
 consist principally in the high price of rents and 
 labor. The leading officers, I presume, are satis¬ 
 fied with the salaries as fixed by law, as I under¬ 
 stand there was great competition for those situ¬ 
 ations. 
 
 With the inspectors, there will be some diffi¬ 
 culty, as the limit of the law is too small for the 
 rate of wages in that country at present. But very 
 few inspectors will be required. There is but one 
 port of entry—San Francisco—and the high price 
 of everything reduces the duty to such a small per 
 centage upon the California value as to hold out 
 no inducement for smuggling. As to labor, cart¬ 
 age, and storage, what is paid by the Government 
 will be the criterion of what shall be refunded by 
 the merchant. 
 
 The gentleman from Ohio controverts my posi¬ 
 tion as to the legal effect of the law of March last. 
 In reference to it, I said in my opening remarks, 
 that when it passed, requiring the Treasury De¬ 
 partment to reduce the expenses of collecting the 
 revenue to $1,560,000, it necessarily gave the Sec¬ 
 retary the authority to do it. His discretion as to 
 the mode of reduction was unlimited. Suppose 
 the salaries of all of the officers of the customs 
 had been fixed by law, prior to the act of the 3d of 
 j March, 1849, could it be said that therefore it was 
 inoperative?—that the last law would be controlled 
 and nullified by those which had preceded it? 1 
 do not know in what code of laws such rules of 
 construction are to be found; certainly in none 
 with which I am acquainted. 
 
 In reply to this, the gentleman asks can the Sec¬ 
 retary then abolish the custom-houses in the south¬ 
 ern States? He informs us that most of those from 
 the Potomac to New Orleans are charges upon the 
 Treasury, and by striking them off, the deficiency 
 of means would be made up at once. It so hap¬ 
 pens that we have a Constitution, which is the su¬ 
 preme law of the land, that not only deprives the 
 Secretary of the Treasury of authority to do this, 
 but Congress itself. I know that that Constitution 
 ! very rarely stands in the way of the gentleman in 
 ! accomplishing his purposes; but I generally take 
 I it into consideration in making up my opinions 
 where it applies. If gentlemen suppose the cus¬ 
 tom-houses at the South are exclusively for our 
 benefit, I think they are greatly mistaken. But 
 < for the Constitution, they might abolish them to- 
 
12 
 
 morrow, as far as I am concerned, and let us have 
 free trade. But I fancy such a proposition would 
 be rather rigorously opposed from the North. The 
 opinion I have expressed as to the effect of the 
 law of March last may be very absurd, but I have 
 the pleasure to know it is concurred in by so sound 
 a lawyer as the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. 
 To OMBS.] 
 
 The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Vinton] says 
 that the law of March last is an anomaly in our 
 system. And both he and the gentleman from 
 Massachusetts [Mr. Wintiirop] ask what would 
 be thought of a law appropriating so much money 
 for the army or navy, and requiring that more 
 should not be expended ? That is precisely what 
 we do. The Constitution requires that no money 
 shall be drawn from the treasury, except in con¬ 
 sequence of appropriations made by law. We 
 make appropriations of specific sums, with the 
 right of the Secretaries, in certain cases, to make 
 transfers. These sums cannot legally be ex¬ 
 ceeded. How does that differ from this law ? The 
 reductions to be made in the cost of collecting the 
 revenue are, in their nature, administrative and 
 not legislative. It would be difficult to make spe¬ 
 cific appropriations ; and, without authority in the 
 Secretary to make transfers, it would not work 
 well, I am satisfied. In the army and navy the 
 employment is stationary—it is always pretty 
 much the same ; whereas, in collecting the cus¬ 
 toms, at one time there is a pressure of business, 
 at another a stagnation ; at one time a larger force 
 is necessary, at another a smaller one. The law 
 contemplates this, and hence the pay is “ per 
 diem.” In many of the collection districts, the 
 officers are temporarily and not constantly em¬ 
 ployed. In the large cities it should be otherwise, 
 perhaps, to a great extent; but in other places it 
 must be as it is. 
 
 Before I dismiss this branch of the subject, I 
 wish to call the gentleman’s attention to one fact. 
 
 I hold in my hand an estimate by the collectors of 
 Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, 
 for the expenses of their offices for the next fiscal 
 year. They propose to increase the expenditures 
 in those four custom-houses $212,946. They 
 propose to curtail the revenue marine very largely, 
 but to increase their other expenditures to the 
 amount I name; and, in spite of the Secretary, it 
 will be done, if we remove the restrictions of law. 
 He does not adopt their estimates; but, with my 
 personal respect for him, I prefer to rely upon the 
 restriction of law, rather than his sternness. 
 
 A violent assault has been made upon the 
 ground I take in favor of reducing the salaries 
 under the General Government to a scale which 
 Will put them upon an equality as to emolument 
 with those received in the private pursuits of life 
 and under the State governments; and the gentle¬ 
 man from Massachusetts [Mr. Winthrop] speaks 
 of my zeal in favor of economy as a new-born 
 one. No one knows better than the gentleman 
 that, until this session, I have never been in a 
 position to require that I should take this matter 
 especially in charge. He has served with me 
 ever since I have been in Congress; and if he will 
 run back in his memory, or if my humble course 
 has escaped him—in which event he ought not to 
 have spoken until he informed himself—if he will 
 look to my recorded votes, he will find that I have 
 voted as steadily as any other member of this 
 
 Blouse against extravagant appropriations, no 
 matter what their object may have been. What¬ 
 ever may be my course in private life, as a repre¬ 
 sentative of the people, whether here or else¬ 
 where, I have been a rigid economist: not from a 
 spirit of parsimony, but, because I think it accords 
 with the spirit of our republican institutions. As 
 to the other ground taken, it has been a favorite 
 idea with me for many, many years. The high 
 salaries under this Government, compared with 
 those under the States, are corrupting: in their in¬ 
 fluence; they turn all eyes to this Federal head- 
 tend to lower the States and State employmentst 
 and lead directly to consolidation. They convert 
 political contests into struggles for place, instead 
 of principles, and add violence to them. I know 
 of no reform more important than bringing down 
 the salaries under this Government to a level 
 with those received under the States, and in pri¬ 
 vate life. Do this, and the eternal struggle for 
 the spoils will cease. And if Congress will sus¬ 
 tain me, this great reform shall be made. 
 
 I am told that collectors, naval officers, survey¬ 
 ors, &c., who can give the requisite bonds, and are 
 competent to the stations, could not be had for less 
 salaries than they now receive. Sir, I do not be¬ 
 lieve it. The treasurer of the United States gives 
 heavy bonds, and has upon his shoulders great re¬ 
 sponsibility. His salary is $3,000. How is it 
 with executors, guardians, fiduciaries of every 
 character? How is it with cashiers of banks? 
 How is it with the collector of Philadelphia? I 
 am told he was once cashier of a bank, and had to 
 give heavy bonds. Did he receive half the salary 
 lie does now? 1 fancy not. Be that as it may, I know 
 that it is not the size of the salary received, but 
 the character of the man which enables him to give 
 security. The offices in question require no great 
 capacity in the incumbent. Any good business 
 man is capable of filling any of them; and a plenty 
 of such can be readily obtained at smaller—much 
 smaller—salaries than are now paid. 
 
 If gentlemen holding such offices receive no more 
 than enough, why such competition for them 
 Why, in a country like this, where the avenues 
 of employment are so wide open to all, are men so 
 anxious to quit private pursuits for governmental 
 employment, with all of its uncertainties, and its 
 ups and downs? How isitthat they can bear, and 
 willingly bear, such heavy assessments for elec¬ 
 tioneering and corrupting purposes? Sir, under 
 our present system, what are the recommenda¬ 
 tions of applicants for office ? Is it that they are 
 honest, faithful, capable ? Far from it. I hold in 
 my hand a Philadelphia paper, containing an arti¬ 
 cle, which is a fair specimen of the sort of recom¬ 
 mendations which are urged in favor of applicants 
 for office. It reads thus: 
 
 “We sincerely hope, in common witli all Native Ameri¬ 
 cans, that General Peter Sken Smith will, on the rejection 
 of Mr. Lewis, be appointed collector of the port of Philadel¬ 
 phia. General Smith is preeminently entitled to this appoint¬ 
 ment for the signal services he rendered in bringing about, the 
 nomination of General Taylor, and for the labor and money he 
 expended in helping to secure the election of the hero of Buena 
 Vista.” 
 
 It does not stop here. The editor continues: 
 
 “ We demand General Smith's appointment as aright — 
 and in the name of the Native American party, we ask for it. 
 Mr. Lewis is of no more service to the Administration than 
 a fifth wheel would he to a wagon, and the sooner he is re¬ 
 moved the better; the Native American vote notwnly rules 
 the county of Philadelphia, butthe State of Pennsylvania.” 
 
13 
 
 I know nothing of this controversy about the 
 collectorship of Philadelphia. That it is so fierce 
 only proves that the prize in the shape of salary 
 and patronage is too great. I know nothing of it, 
 and want to know nothing of it. But I very much 
 suspect, from the character of Gen. Smith’s recom¬ 
 mendation, that Mr. Lewis is the better man of the 
 two. But I know nothing about it. What is the 
 character of the recommendation ? That General 
 Smith has fine business capacities? That he will 
 be acceptable to the commercial community of 
 Philadelphia? Oh, no! He rendered signal ser¬ 
 vice in effecting the nomination of General Taylor, 
 and spent his money in procuring his election. 
 He belongs to that miserable faction, the Native 
 American party, which we are told holds the bal¬ 
 ance of power in Pennsylvania; and therefore his 
 appointment is demanded. Sir, 1 know that news¬ 
 papers do not generally come out thus openly; but 
 the recommendations thus proposed are those most 
 relied upon, and they show the demoralizing ten¬ 
 dency of the policy against which I am warring. 
 
 The gentleman from New York [Mr. Brooks] 
 has been kind enough to lecture me as to the way 
 by which I can acquire a national reputation. He 
 advises me to rise above party, and pursue a course 
 of liberality which will gain for me plaudits 
 through the land. This is his idea, not his 
 language. If that gentleman or anybody else sup¬ 
 poses that I will be beguiled from my duty by 
 such considerations, or deterred from it by denun¬ 
 ciation and detraction, they have greatly mis¬ 
 
 judged my character, and exhibit an ignorance of 
 my humble history. I have resisted those things 
 heretofore, and I shall do it in the future. I know 
 the penalty where a man treads the plain path of 
 duty, when it does not lead in the direction which 
 power could desire. But I shall tread it fearlessly. 
 The cause I am pursuing will meet with the appro¬ 
 bation of the party to which I belong—of the con¬ 
 stituents I represent—and above all, of my own con¬ 
 science. If it meets with the approbation of others, 
 I shall rejoice at it, but if it does not, I shall not 
 repine. But why admonish me to rise above party? 
 Does not the gentleman know that, in the very 
 movement to take up this bill in the Committee of the 
 Whole in preference to other matters, and claiming 
 the floor in preference to my friend from Missis¬ 
 sippi, [Mr. Brown,] I verged upon discourtesy to 
 him to whom I should be so reluctant to be dis¬ 
 courteous? Does he not know that, in my perti¬ 
 nacity yesterday to stop the debate upon this bill, 
 in order that the suspense of the Treasury Depart¬ 
 ment might be relieved, I resisted the wishes of 
 friends who desired to debate it? He knows 
 all this. Why, then, lecture me about rising 
 above personal and party considerations ? In my 
 opening remarks I made no reference to party 
 topics. They have been introduced by the 
 other side. And if they have not allured me into 
 a party debate, it only proves how unnecessary 
 have been the admonitions of the gentleman. I 
 have no wish to embarrass the Administration, but 
 I shall not cater to its extravagance. 
 

 
 ■ 
 
 ♦ I ‘ 
 
 t' » 
 
 . 
 
 * . • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 ‘ 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 ‘ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 ! / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 ■ :: -■ 
 

) K