Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives:

Throughout the year since our last meeting the country has been eminently
prosperous in all its material interests. The general health has been
excellent, our harvests have been abundant, and plenty smiles throughout
the laud. Our commerce and manufactures have been prosecuted with energy
and industry, and have yielded fair and ample returns. In short, no nation
in the tide of time has ever presented a spectacle of greater material
prosperity than we have done until within a very recent period.

Why is it, then, that discontent now so extensively prevails, and the Union
of the States, which is the source of all these blessings, is threatened
with destruction?

The long-continued and intemperate interference of the Northern people with
the question of slavery in the Southern States has at length produced its
natural effects. The different sections of the Union are now arrayed
against each other, and the time has arrived, so much dreaded by the Father
of his Country, when hostile geographical parties have been formed.

I have long foreseen and often forewarned my countrymen of the now
impending danger. This does not proceed solely from the claim on the part
of Congress or the Territorial legislatures to exclude slavery from the
Territories, nor from the efforts of different States to defeat the
execution of the fugitive-slave law. All or any of these evils might have
been endured by the South without danger to the Union (as others have been)
in the hope that time and reflection might apply the remedy. The immediate
peril arises not so much from these causes as from the fact that the
incessant and violent agitation of the slavery question throughout the
North for the last quarter of a century has at length produced its malign
influence on the slaves and inspired them with vague notions of freedom.
Hence a sense of security no longer exists around the family altar. This
feeling of peace at home has given place to apprehensions of servile
insurrections. Many a matron throughout the South retires at night in dread
of what may befall herself and children before the morning. Should this
apprehension of domestic danger, whether real or imaginary, extend and
intensify itself until it shall pervade the masses of the Southern people,
then disunion will become inevitable. Self-preservation is the first law of
nature, and has been implanted in the heart of man by his Creator for the
wisest purpose; and no political union, however fraught with blessings and
benefits in all other respects, can long continue if the necessary
consequence be to render the homes and the firesides of nearly half the
parties to it habitually and hopelessly insecure. Sooner or later the bonds
of such a union must be severed. It is my conviction that this fatal period
has not yet arrived, and my prayer to God is that He would preserve the
Constitution and the Union throughout all generations.

But let us take warning in time and remove the cause of danger. It can not
be denied that for five and twenty years the agitation at the North against
slavery has been incessant. In 1835 pictorial handbills and inflammatory
appeals were circulated extensively throughout the South of a character to
excite the passions of the slaves, and, in the language of General Jackson,
"to stimulate them to insurrection and produce all the horrors of a servile
war." This agitation has ever since been continued by the public press, by
the proceedings of State and county conventions and by abolition sermons
and lectures. The time of Congress has been occupied in violent speeches on
this never-ending subject, and appeals, in pamphlet and other forms,
indorsed by distinguished names, have been sent forth from this central
point and spread broadcast over the Union.

How easy would it be for the American people to settle the slavery question
forever and to restore peace and harmony to this distracted country! They,
and they alone, can do it. All that is necessary to accomplish the object,
and all for which the slave States have ever contended, is to be let alone
and permitted to manage their domestic institutions in their own way. As
sovereign States, they, and they alone, are responsible before God and the
world for the slavery existing among them. For this the people of the North
are not more responsible and have no more fight to interfere than with
similar institutions in Russia or in Brazil.

Upon their good sense and patriotic forbearance I confess I still greatly
rely. Without their aid it is beyond the power of any President, no matter
what may be his own political proclivities, to restore peace and harmony
among the States. Wisely limited and restrained as is his power under our
Constitution and laws, he alone can accomplish but little for good or for
evil on such a momentous question.

And this brings me to observe that the election of any one of our
fellow-citizens to the office of President does not of itself afford just
cause for dissolving the Union. This is more especially true if his
election has been effected by a mere plurality, and not a majority of the
people, and has resulted from transient and temporary causes, which may
probably never again occur. In order to justify a resort to revolutionary
resistance, the Federal Government must be guilty of "a deliberate,
palpable, and dangerous exercise" of powers not granted by the
Constitution.

The late Presidential election, however, has been held in strict conformity
with its express provisions. How, then, can the result justify a revolution
to destroy this very Constitution? Reason, justice, a regard for the
Constitution, all require that we shall wait for some overt and dangerous
act on the part of the President elect before resorting to such a remedy.
It is said, however, that the antecedents of the President-elect have been
sufficient to justify the fears of the South that he will attempt to invade
their constitutional rights. But are such apprehensions of contingent
danger in the future sufficient to justify the immediate destruction of the
noblest system of government ever devised by mortals? From the very nature
of his office and its high responsibilities he must necessarily be
conservative. The stern duty of administering the vast and complicated
concerns of this Government affords in itself a guaranty that he will not
attempt any violation of a clear constitutional right.

After all, he is no more than the chief executive officer of the
Government. His province is not to make but to execute the laws. And it is
a remarkable fact in our history that, notwithstanding the repeated efforts
of the antislavery party, no single act has ever passed Congress, unless we
may possibly except the Missouri compromise, impairing in the slightest
degree the rights of the South to their property in slaves; and it may also
be observed, judging from present indications, that no probability exists
of the passage of such an act by a majority of both Houses, either in the
present or the next Congress. Surely under these circumstances we ought to
be restrained from present action by the precept of Him who spake as man
never spoke, that "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." The day of
evil may never come unless we shall rashly bring it upon ourselves.

It is alleged as one cause for immediate secession that the Southern States
are denied equal rights with the other States in the common Territories.
But by what authority are these denied? Not by Congress, which has never
passed, and I believe never will pass, any act to exclude slavery from
these Territories; and certainly not by the Supreme Court, which has
solemnly decided that slaves are property, and, like all other property,
their owners have a right to take them into the common Territories and hold
them there under the protection of the Constitution.

So far then, as Congress is concerned, the objection is not to anything
they have already done, but to what they may do hereafter. It will surely
be admitted that this apprehension of future danger is no good reason for
an immediate dissolution of the Union. It is true that the Territorial
legislature of Kansas, on the 23d February, 1860, passed in great haste an
act over the veto of the governor declaring that slavery "is and shall be
forever prohibited in this Territory." Such an act, however, plainly
violating the rights of property secured by the Constitution, will surely
be declared void by the judiciary whenever it shall be presented in a legal
form.

Only three days after my inauguration the Supreme Court of the United
States solemnly adjudged that this power did not exist in a Territorial
legislature. Yet such has been the factious temper of the times that the
correctness of this decision has been extensively impugned before the
people, and the question has given rise to angry political conflicts
throughout the country. Those who have appealed from this judgment of our
highest constitutional tribunal to popular assemblies would, if they could,
invest a Territorial legislature with power to annul the sacred rights of
property. This power Congress is expressly forbidden by the Federal
Constitution to exercise. Every State legislature in the Union is forbidden
by its own constitution to exercise it. It can not be exercised in any
State except by the people in their highest sovereign capacity, when
framing or amending their State constitution. In like manner it can only be
exercised by the people of a Territory represented in a convention of
delegates for the purpose of framing a constitution preparatory to
admission as a State into the Union. Then, and not until then, are they
invested with power to decide the question whether slavery shall or shall
not exist within their limits. This is an act of sovereign authority, and
not of subordinate Territorial legislation. Were it otherwise, then indeed
would the equality of the States in the Territories be destroyed, and the
rights of property in slaves would depend not upon the guaranties of the
Constitution, but upon the shifting majorities of an irresponsible
Territorial legislature. Such a doctrine, from its intrinsic unsoundness,
can not long influence any considerable portion of our people, much less
can it afford a good reason for a dissolution of the Union.

The most palpable violations of constitutional duty which have yet been
committed consist in the acts of different State legislatures to defeat the
execution of the fugitive-slave law. It ought to be remembered, however,
that for these acts neither Congress nor any President can justly be held
responsible. Having been passed in violation of the Federal Constitution,
they are therefore null and void. All the courts, both State and national,
before whom the question has arisen have from the beginning declared the
fugitive-slave law to be constitutional. The single exception is that of a
State court in Wisconsin, and this has not only been reversed by the proper
appellate tribunal, but has met with such universal reprobation that there
can be no danger from it as a precedent. The validity of this law has been
established over and over again by the Supreme Court of the United States
with perfect unanimity. It is rounded upon an express provision of the
Constitution, requiring that fugitive slaves who escape from service in one
State to another shall be "delivered up" to their masters. Without this
provision it is a well-known historical fact that the Constitution itself
could never have been adopted by the Convention. In one form or other,
under the acts of 1793 and 1850, both being substantially the same, the
fugitive-slave law has been the law of the land from the days of Washington
until the present moment. Here, then, a clear case is presented in which it
will be the duty of the next President, as it has been my own, to act with
vigor in executing this supreme law against the conflicting enactments of
State legislatures. Should he fail in the performance of this high duty, he
will then have manifested a disregard of the Constitution and laws, to the
great injury of the people of nearly one-half of the States of the Union.
But are we to presume in advance that he will thus violate his duty? This
would be at war with every principle of justice and of Christian charity.
Let us wait for the overt act. The fugitive-slave law has been carried into
execution in every contested case since the commencement of the present
Administration, though Often, it is to be regretted, with great loss and
inconvenience to the master and with considerable expense to the
Government. Let us trust that the State legislatures will repeal their
unconstitutional and obnoxious enactments. Unless this shall be done
without unnecessary delay, it is impossible for any human power to save the
Union.

The Southern States, standing on the basis of the Constitution, have right
to demand this act of justice from the States of the North. Should it be
refused, then the Constitution, to which all the States are parties, will
have been willfully violated by one portion of them in a provision
essential to the domestic security and happiness of the remainder. In that
event the injured States, after having first used all peaceful and
constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary
resistance to the Government of the Union.

I have purposely confined my remarks to revolutionary resistance, because
it has been claimed within the last few years that any State, whenever this
shall be its sovereign will and pleasure, may secede from the Union in
accordance with the Constitution and without any violation of the
constitutional rights of the other members of the Confederacy; that as each
became parties to the Union by the vote of its own people assembled in
convention, so any one of them may retire from the Union in a similar
manner by the vote of such a convention.

In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the
principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of
States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties.
If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and
dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States.
In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many
petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union
without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to
such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into
fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil,
privation, and blood to establish.

Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the history as well as the
character of the Federal Constitution. After it was framed with the
greatest deliberation and care it was submitted to conventions of the
people of the several States for ratification. Its provisions were
discussed at length in these bodies, composed of the first men of the
country. Its opponents contended that it conferred powers upon the Federal
Government dangerous to the rights of the States, whilst its advocates
maintained that under a fair construction of the instrument there was no
foundation for such apprehensions. In that mighty struggle between the
first intellects of this or any other country it never occurred to any
individual, either among its opponents or advocates, to assert or even to
intimate that their efforts were all vain labor, because the moment that
any State felt herself aggrieved she might secede from the Union. What a
crushing argument would this have proved against those who dreaded that the
rights of the States would be endangered by the Constitution! The truth is
that it was not until many years after the origin of the Federal Government
that such a proposition was first advanced. It was then met and refuted by
the conclusive arguments of General Jackson, who in his message of the 16th
of January, 1833, transmitting the nullifying ordinance of South Carolina
to Congress, employs the following language:

The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at will and
without the consent of the other States from their most solemn obligations,
and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing this
Union, can not be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly
repugnant both to the principles upon which the General Government is
constituted and to the objects which it is expressly formed to attain.

It is not pretended that any clause in the Constitution gives countenance
to such a theory. It is altogether rounded upon inference; not from any
language contained in the instrument itself, but from the sovereign
character of the several States by which it was ratified. But is it beyond
the power of a State, like an individual, to yield a portion of its
sovereign rights to secure the remainder? In the language of Mr. Madison,
who has been called the father of the Constitution--

It was formed by the States; that is, by the people in each of the States
acting in their highest sovereign capacity, and formed, consequently, by
the same authority which formed the State constitutions. Nor is the
Government of the United States, created by the Constitution, less a
government, in the strict sense of the term, within the sphere of its
powers than the governments created by the constitutions of the States are
within their several spheres. It is, like them, organized into legislative,
executive, and judiciary departments. It operates, like them directly on
persons and things, and, like them, it has at command a physical force for
executing the powers committed to it.

It was intended to be perpetual, and not to be annulled at the pleasure of
any one of the contracting parties. The old Articles of Confederation were
entitled "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between the
States," and by the thirteenth article it is expressly declared that "the
articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State,
and the Union shall be perpetual." The preamble to the Constitution of the
United States, having express reference to the Articles of Confederation,
recites that it was established "in order to form a more perfect union."
And yet it is contended that this "more perfect union" does not include the
essential attribute of perpetuity.

But that the Union was designed to be perpetual appears conclusively from
the nature and extent of the powers conferred by the Constitution on the
Federal Government. These powers embrace the very highest attributes of
national sovereignty. They place both the sword and the purse under its
control. Congress has power to make war and to make peace, to raise and
support armies and navies, and to conclude treaties with foreign
governments. It is invested with the power to coin money and to regulate
the value thereof, and to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among
the several States. It is not necessary to enumerate the other high powers
which have been conferred upon the Federal Government. In order to carry
the enumerated powers into effect, Congress possesses the exclusive right
to lay and collect duties on imports, and, in common with the States, to
lay and collect all other taxes.

But the Constitution has not only conferred these high powers upon
Congress, but it has adopted effectual means to restrain the States from
interfering with their exercise. For that purpose it has in strong
prohibitory language expressly declared that--

No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant
letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make
anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any
bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of
contracts. Moreover--

No State shall without the consent of the Congress lay any imposts or
duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for
executing its inspection laws.

And if they exceed this amount the excess shall belong, to the United
States. And--

No State shall without the consent of Congress lay any duty of tonnage,
keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or
compact with another State or with a foreign power, or engage in war,
unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of
delay.

In order still further to secure the uninterrupted exercise of these high
powers against State interposition, it is provided that--

This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in
pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the
authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and
the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the
constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The solemn sanction of religion has been superadded to the obligations of
official duty, and all Senators and Representatives of the United States,
all members of State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers,
"both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by
oath or affirmation to support this Constitution."

In order to carry into effect these powers, the Constitution has
established a perfect Government in all its forms--legislative, executive,
and judicial; and this Government to the extent of its powers acts directly
upon the individual citizens of every State, and executes its own decrees
by the agency of its own officers. In this respect it differs entirely from
the Government under the old Confederation, which was confined to making
requisitions on the States in their sovereign character. This left it in
the discretion of each whether to obey or to refuse, and they often
declined to comply with such requisitions. It thus became necessary for the
purpose of removing this barrier and "in order to form a more perfect
union" to establish a Government which could act directly upon the people
and execute its own laws without the intermediate agency of the States.
This has been accomplished by the Constitution of the United States. In
short, the Government created by the Constitution, and deriving its
authority from the sovereign people of each of the several States, has
precisely the same right to exercise its power over the people of all these
States in the enumerated cases that each one of them possesses over
subjects not delegated to the United States, but "reserved to the States
respectively or to the people."

To the extent of the delegated powers the Constitution of the United States
is as much a part of the constitution of each State and is as binding upon
its people as though it had been textually inserted therein.

This Government, therefore, is a great and powerful Government, invested
with all the attributes of sovereignty over the special subjects to which
its authority extends. Its framers never intended to implant in its bosom
the seeds of its own destruction, nor were they at its creation guilty of
the absurdity of providing for its own dissolution. It was not intended by
its framers to be the baseless fabric of a vision, which at the touch of
the enchanter would vanish into thin air, but a substantial and mighty
fabric, capable of resisting the slow decay of time and of defying the
storms of ages. Indeed, well may the jealous patriots of that day have
indulged fears that a Government of such high powers might violate the
reserved rights of the States, and wisely did they adopt the rule of a
strict construction of these powers to prevent the danger. But they did not
fear, nor had they any reason to imagine, that the Constitution would ever
be so interpreted as to enable any State by her own act, and without the
consent of her sister States, to discharge her people from all or any of
their federal obligations.

It may be asked, then, Are the people of the States without redress against
the tyranny and oppression of the Federal Government? By no means. The
right of resistance on the part of the governed against the oppression of
their governments can not be denied. It exists independently of all
constitutions, and has been exercised at all periods of the world's
history. Under it old governments have been destroyed and new ones have
taken their place. It is embodied in strong and express language in our own
Declaration of Independence. But the distinction must ever be observed that
this is revolution against an established government, and not a voluntary
secession from it by virtue of an inherent constitutional right. In short,
let us look the danger fairly in the face. Secession is neither more nor
less than revolution. It may or it may not be a justifiable revolution, but
still it is revolution.

What, in the meantime, is the responsibility and true position of the
Executive? He is bound by solemn oath, before God and the country, "to take
care that the laws be faithfully executed," and from this obligation he can
not be absolved by any human power. But what if the performance of this
duty, in whole or in part, has been rendered impracticable by events over
which he could have exercised no control? Such at the present moment is the
case throughout the State of South Carolina so far as the laws of the
United States to secure the administration of justice by means of the
Federal judiciary are concerned. All the Federal officers within its limits
through whose agency alone these laws can be carried into execution have
already resigned. We no longer have a district judge, a district attorney,
or a marshal in South Carolina. In fact, the whole machinery of the Federal
Government necessary for the distribution of remedial justice among the
people has been demolished, and it would be difficult, if not impossible,
to replace it.

The only acts of Congress on the statute book bearing upon this subject are
those of February 28, 1795, and March 3, 1807. These authorize the
President, after he shall have ascertained that the marshal, with his posse
comitatus, is unable to execute civil or criminal process in any particular
case, to call forth the militia and employ the Army and Navy to aid him in
performing this service, having first by proclamation commanded the
insurgents "to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes
within a limited time" This duty can not by possibility be performed in a
State where no judicial authority exists to issue process, and where there
is no marshal to execute it, and where, even if there were such an officer,
the entire population would constitute one solid combination to resist
him.

The bare enumeration of these provisions proves how inadequate they are
without further legislation to overcome a united opposition in a single
State, not to speak of other States who may place themselves in a similar
attitude. Congress alone has power to decide whether the present laws can
or can not be amended so as to carry out more effectually the objects of
the Constitution.

The same insuperable obstacles do not lie in the way of executing the laws
for the collection of the customs. The revenue still continues to be
collected as heretofore at the custom-house in Charleston, and should the
collector unfortunately resign a successor may be appointed to perform this
duty.

Then, in regard to the property of the United States in South Carolina.
This has been purchased for a fair equivalent, "by the consent of the
legislature of the State," "for the erection of forts, magazines,
arsenals," etc., and over these the authority "to exercise exclusive
legislation" has been expressly granted by the Constitution to Congress. It
is not believed that any attempt will be made to expel the United States
from this property by force; but if in this I should prove to be mistaken,
the officer in command of the forts has received orders to act strictly on
the defensive. In such a contingency the responsibility for consequences
would rightfully rest upon the heads of the assailants.

Apart from the execution of the laws, so far as this may be practicable,
the Executive has no authority to decide what shall be the relations
between the Federal Government and South Carolina. He has been invested
with no such discretion. He possesses no power to change the relations
heretofore existing between them, much less to acknowledge the independence
of that State. This would be to invest a mere executive officer with the
power of recognizing the dissolution of the confederacy among our
thirty-three sovereign States. It bears no resemblance to the recognition
of a foreign de facto government, involving no such responsibility. Any
attempt to do this would, on his part, be a naked act of usurpation. It is
therefore my duty to submit to Congress the whole question in all its
beatings. The course of events is so rapidly hastening forward that the
emergency may soon arise when you may be called upon to decide the
momentous question whether you possess the power by force of arms to compel
a State to remain in the Union. I should feel myself recreant to my duty
were I not to express an opinion on this important subject.

The question fairly stated is, Has the Constitution delegated to Congress
the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw
or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If answered in the
affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred
upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much
serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has
been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the Federal
Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this
is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it
is equally apparent that its exercise is not "necessary and proper for
carrying into execution" any one of these powers. So far from this power
having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the
Convention which framed the Constitution.

It appears from the proceedings of that body that on the 31st May, 1787,
the clause "authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole against a
delinquent State" came up for consideration. Mr. Madison opposed it in a
brief but powerful speech, from which I shall extract but a single
sentence. He observed:

The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war
than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the
party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might
be bound.

Upon his motion the clause was unanimously postponed, and was never, I
believe, again presented. Soon afterwards, on the 8th June, 1787, when
incidentally adverting to the subject, he said: "Any government for the
United States formed on the supposed practicability of using force against
the unconstitutional proceedings of the States would prove as visionary and
fallacious as the government of Congress," evidently meaning the then
existing Congress of the old Confederation.

Without descending to particulars, it may be safely asserted that the power
to make war against a State is at variance with the whole spirit and intent
of the Constitution. Suppose such a war should result in the conquest of a
State; how are we to govern it afterwards? Shall we hold it as a province
and govern it by despotic power? In the nature of things, we could not by
physical force control the will of the people and compel them to elect
Senators and Representatives to Congress and to perform all the other
duties depending upon their own volition and required from the free
citizens of a free State as a constituent member of the Confederacy.

But if we possessed this power, would it be wise to exercise it under
existing circumstances? The object would doubtless be to preserve the
Union. War would not only present the most effectual means of destroying
it, but would vanish all hope of its peaceable reconstruction. Besides, in
the fraternal conflict a vast amount of blood and treasure would be
expended, rendering future reconciliation between the States impossible. In
the meantime, who can foretell what would be the sufferings and privations
of the people during its existence?

The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be
cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live
in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses
many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed
in their hand to preserve it by force.

But may I be permitted solemnly to invoke my countrymen to pause and
deliberate before they determine to destroy this the grandest temple which
has ever been dedicated to human freedom since the world began? It has been
consecrated by the blood of our fathers, by the glories of the past, and by
the hopes of the future. The Union has already made us the most prosperous,
and ere long will, if preserved, render us the most powerful, nation on the
face of the earth. In every foreign region of the globe the title of
American citizen is held in the highest respect, and when pronounced in a
foreign land it causes the hearts of our countrymen to swell with honest
pride. Surely when we reach the brink of the yawning abyss we shall recoil
with horror from the last fatal plunge.

By such a dread catastrophe the hopes of the friends of freedom throughout
the world would be destroyed, and a long night of leaden despotism would
enshroud the nations. Our example for more than eighty years would not only
be lost, but it would be quoted as a conclusive proof that man is unfit for
self-government.

It is not every wrong--nay, it is not every grievous wrong--which can
justify a resort to such a fearful alternative. This ought to be the last
desperate remedy of a despairing people, after every other constitutional
means of conciliation had been exhausted. We should reflect that under this
free Government there is an incessant ebb and flow in public opinion. The
slavery question, like everything human, will have its day. I firmly
believe that it has reached and passed the culminating point. But if in the
midst of the existing excitement the Union shall perish, the evil may then
become irreparable.

Congress can contribute much to avert it by proposing and recommending to
the legislatures of the several States the remedy for existing evils which
the Constitution has itself provided for its own preservation. This has
been tried at different critical periods of our history, and always with
eminent success. It is to be found in the fifth article, providing for its
own amendment. Under this article amendments have been proposed by
two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, and have been "ratified by the
legislatures of three-fourths of the several States," and have consequently
become parts of the Constitution. To this process the country is indebted
for the clause prohibiting Congress from passing any law respecting an
establishment of religion or abridging the freedom of speech or of the
press or of the right of petition. To this we are also indebted for the
bill of rights which secures the people against any abuse of power by the
Federal Government. Such were the apprehensions justly entertained by the
friends of State rights at that period as to have rendered it extremely
doubtful whether the Constitution could have long survived without those
amendments.

Again the Constitution was amended by the same process, after the election
of President Jefferson by the House of Representatives, in February, 1803.
This amendment was rendered necessary to prevent a recurrence of the
dangers which had seriously threatened the existence of the Government
during the pendency of that election. The article for its own amendment was
intended to secure the amicable adjustment of conflicting constitutional
questions like the present which might arise between the governments of the
States and that of the United States. This appears from contemporaneous
history. In this connection I shall merely call attention to a few
sentences in Mr. Madison's justly celebrated report, in 1799, to the
legislature of Virginia. In this he ably and conclusively defended the
resolutions of the preceding legislature against the strictures of several
other State legislatures. These were mainly rounded upon the protest of the
Virginia legislature against the "alien and sedition acts," as "palpable
and alarming infractions of the Constitution." In pointing out the peaceful
and constitutional remedies--and he referred to none other--to which the
States were authorized to resort on such occasions, he concludes by saying
that--

The legislatures of the States might have made a direct representation to
Congress with a view to obtain a rescinding of the two offensive acts, or
they might have represented to their respective Senators in Congress their
wish that two-thirds thereof would propose an explanatory amendment to the
Constitution; or two-thirds of themselves, if such had been their option,
might by an application to Congress have obtained a convention for the same
object.

This is the very course which I earnestly recommend in order to obtain an
"explanatory amendment" of the Constitution on the subject of slavery. This
might originate with Congress or the State legislatures, as may be deemed
most advisable to attain the object. The explanatory amendment might be
confined to the final settlement of the true construction of the
Constitution on three special points:

1. An express recognition of the right of property in slaves in the States
where it now exists or may hereafter exist.

2. The duty of protecting this right in all the common Territories
throughout their Territorial existence, and until they shall be admitted as
States into the Union, with or without slavery, as their constitutions may
prescribe.

3. A like recognition of the right of the master to have his slave who has
escaped from one State to another restored and "delivered up" to him, and
of the validity of the fugitive-slave law enacted for this purpose,
together with a declaration that all State laws impairing or defeating this
right are violations of the Constitution, and are consequently null and
void. It may be objected that this construction of the Constitution has
already been settled by the Supreme Court of the United States, and what
more ought to be required? The answer is that a very large proportion of
the people of the United States still contest the correctness of this
decision, and never will cease from agitation and admit its binding force
until clearly established by the people of the several States in their
sovereign character. Such an explanatory amendment would, it is believed,
forever terminate the existing dissensions, and restore peace and harmony
among the States.

It ought not to be doubted that such an appeal to the arbitrament
established by the Constitution itself would be received with favor by all
the States of the Confederacy. In any event, it ought to be tried in a
spirit of conciliation before any of these States shall separate themselves
from the Union.

When I entered upon the duties of the Presidential office, the aspect
neither of our foreign nor domestic affairs was at all satisfactory. We
were involved in dangerous complications with several nations, and two of
our Territories were in a state of revolution against the Government. A
restoration of the African slave trade had numerous and powerful advocates.
Unlawful military expeditions were countenanced by many of our citizens,
and were suffered, in defiance of the efforts of the Government, to escape
from our shores for the purpose of making war upon the offending people of
neighboring republics with whom we were at peace. In addition to these and
other difficulties, we experienced a revulsion in monetary affairs soon
after my advent to power of unexampled severity and of ruinous consequences
to all the great interests of the country. When we take a retrospect of
what was then our condition and contrast this with its material prosperity
at the time of the late Presidential election, we have abundant reason to
return our grateful thanks to that merciful Providence which has never
forsaken us as a nation in all our past trials.

Our relations with Great Britain are of the most friendly character. Since
the commencement of my Administration the two dangerous questions arising
from the Clayton and Bulwer treaty and from the right of search claimed by
the British Government have been amicably and honorably adjusted.

The discordant constructions of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty between the
two Governments, which at different periods of the discussion bore a
threatening aspect, have resulted in a final settlement entirely
satisfactory to this Government. In my last annual message I informed
Congress that the British Government had not then "completed treaty
arrangements with the Republics of Honduras and Nicaragua in pursuance of
the understanding between the two Governments. It is, nevertheless,
confidently expected that this good work will ere long be accomplished."
This confident expectation has since been fulfilled. Her Britannic Majesty
concluded a treaty with Honduras on the 28th November, 1859, and with
Nicaragua on the 28th August, 1860, relinquishing the Mosquito
protectorate. Besides, by the former the Bay Islands are recognized as a
part of the Republic of Honduras. It may be observed that the stipulations
of these treaties conform in every important particular to the amendments
adopted by the Senate of the United States to the treaty concluded at
London on the 17th October, 1856, between the two Governments. It will be
recollected that this treaty was rejected by the British Government because
of its objection to the just and important amendment of the Senate to the
article relating to Ruatan and the other islands in the Bay of Honduras.

It must be a source of sincere satisfaction to all classes of our
fellow-citizens, and especially to those engaged in foreign commerce, that
the claim on the part of Great Britain forcibly to visit and search
American merchant vessels on the high seas in time of peace has been
abandoned. This was by far the most dangerous question to the peace of the
two countries which has existed since the War of 1812. Whilst it remained
open they might at any moment have been precipitated into a war. This was
rendered manifest by the exasperated state of public feeling throughout our
entire country produced by the forcible search of American merchant vessels
by British cruisers on the coast of Cuba in the spring of 1858. The
American people hailed with general acclaim the orders of the Secretary of
the Navy to our naval force in the Gulf of Mexico "to protect all vessels
of the United States on the high seas from search or detention by the
vessels of war of any other nation." These orders might have produced an
immediate collision between the naval forces of the two countries. This was
most fortunately prevented by an appeal to the justice of Great Britain and
to the law of nations as expounded by her own most eminent jurists.

The only question of any importance which still remains open is the
disputed title between the two Governments to the island of San Juan, in
the vicinity of Washington Territory. As this question is still under
negotiation, it is not deemed advisable at the present moment to make any
other allusion to the subject.

The recent visit of the Prince of Wales, in a private character, to the
people of this country has proved to be a most auspicious event. In its
consequences it can not fail to increase the kindred and kindly feelings
which I trust may ever actuate the Government and people of both countries
in their political and social intercourse with each other.

With France, our ancient and powerful ally, our relations continue to be of
the most friendly character. A decision has recently been made by a French
judicial tribunal, with the approbation of the Imperial Government, which
can not fail to foster the sentiments of mutual regard that have so long
existed between the two countries. Under the French law no person can serve
in the armies of France unless he be a French citizen. The law of France
recognizing the natural right of expatriation, it follows as a necessary
consequence that a Frenchman by the fact of having become a citizen of the
United States has changed his allegiance and has lost his native character.
He can not therefore be compelled to serve in the French armies in case he
should return to his native country. These principles were announced in
1852 by the French minister of war and in two late cases have been
confirmed by the French judiciary. In these, two natives of France have
been discharged from the French army because they had become American
citizens. To employ the language of our present minister to France, who has
rendered good service on this occasion. "I do not think our French
naturalized fellow-citizens will hereafter experience much annoyance on
this subject."

I venture to predict that the time is not far distant when the other
continental powers will adopt the same wise and just policy which has done
so much honor to the enlightened Government of the Emperor. In any event,
our Government is bound to protect the rights of our naturalized citizens
everywhere to the same extent as though they had drawn their first breath
in this country. We can recognize no distinction between our native and
naturalized citizens.

Between the great Empire of Russia and the United States the mutual
friendship and regard which has so long existed still continues to prevail,
and if possible to increase. Indeed, our relations with that Empire are all
that we could desire. Our relations with Spain are now of a more
complicated, though less dangerous, character than they have been for many
years. Our citizens have long held and continue to hold numerous claims
against the Spanish Government. These had been ably urged for a series of
years by our successive diplomatic representatives at Madrid, but without
obtaining redress. The Spanish Government finally agreed to institute a
joint commission for the adjustment of these claims, and on the 5th day of
March, 1860, concluded a convention for this purpose with our present
minister at Madrid.

Under this convention what have been denominated the "Cuban claims,"
amounting to $128,635.54, in which more than 100 of our fellow-citizens are
interested, were recognized, and the Spanish Government agreed to pay
$100,000 of this amount "within three months following the exchange of
ratifications." The payment of the remaining $28,635.54 was to await the
decision of the commissioners for or against the Amistad claim; but in any
event the balance was to be paid to the claimants either by Spain or the
United States. These terms, I have every reason to know, are highly
satisfactory to the holders of the Cuban claims. Indeed, they have made a
formal offer authorizing the State Department to settle these claims and to
deduct the amount of the Amistad claim from the sums which they are
entitled to receive from Spain. This offer, of course, can not be accepted.
All other claims of citizens of the United States against Spain, or the
subjects of the Queen of Spain against the United States, including the
Amistad claim, were by this convention referred to a board of commissioners
in the usual form. Neither the validity of the Amistad claim nor of any
other claim against either party, with the single exception of the Cuban
claims, was recognized by the convention. Indeed, the Spanish Government
did not insist that the validity of the Amistad claim should be thus
recognized, notwithstanding its payment had been recommended to Congress by
two of my predecessors, as well as by myself, and an appropriation for that
purpose had passed the Senate of the United States.

They were content that it should be submitted to the board for examination
and decision like the other claims. Both Governments were bound
respectively to pay the amounts awarded to the several claimants "at such
times and places as may be fixed by and according to the tenor of said
awards."

I transmitted this convention to the Senate for their constitutional action
on the 3d of May, 1860, and on the 27th of the succeeding June they
determined that they would "not advise and consent" to its ratification.

These proceedings place our relations with Spain in an awkward and
embarrassing position. It is more than probable that the final adjustment
of these claims will devolve upon my successor.

I reiterate the recommendation contained in my annual message of December,
1858, and repeated in that of December, 1859, in favor of the acquisition
of Cuba from Spain by fair purchase. I firmly believe that such an
acquisition would contribute essentially to the well-being and prosperity
of both countries in all future time, as well as prove the certain means of
immediately abolishing the African slave trade throughout the world. I
would not repeat this recommendation upon the present occasion if I
believed that the transfer of Cuba to the United States upon conditions
highly favorable to Spain could justly tarnish the national honor of the
proud and ancient Spanish monarchy. Surely no person ever attributed to the
first Napoleon a disregard of the national honor of France for transferring
Louisiana to the United States for a fair equivalent, both in money and
commercial advantages.

With the Emperor of Austria and the remaining continental powers of Europe,
including that of the Sultan, our relations continue to be of the most
friendly character.

The friendly and peaceful policy pursued by the Government of the United
States toward the Empire of China has produced the most satisfactory
results. The treaty of Tien-tsin of the 18th June, 1858, has been
faithfully observed by the Chinese authorities. The convention of the 8th
November, 1858, supplementary to this treaty, for the adjustment and
satisfaction of the claims of our citizens on China referred to in my last
annual message, has been already carried into effect so far as this was
practicable. Under this convention the sum of 500,000 taels, equal to about
$700,000, was stipulated to be paid in satisfaction of the claims of
American citizens out of the one-fifth of the receipts for tonnage, import,
and export duties on American vessels at the ports of Canton, Shanghai, and
Fuchau, and it was "agreed that this amount shall be in full liquidation of
all claims of American citizens at the various ports to this date."
Debentures for this amount, to wit, 300,000 taels for Canton, 100,000 for
Shanghai, and 100,000 for Fuchau, were delivered, according to the terms of
the convention, by the respective Chinese collectors of the customs of
these ports to the agent selected by our minister to receive the same.
Since that time the claims of our citizens have been adjusted by the board
of commissioners appointed for that purpose under the act of March 3, 1859,
and their awards, which proved satisfactory to the claimants, have been
approved by our minister. In the aggregate they amount to the sum of
$498,694.78. The claimants have already received a large proportion of the
sums awarded to them out of the fund provided, and it is confidently
expected that the remainder will ere long be entirely paid. After the
awards shall have been satisfied there will remain a surplus of more than
$200,000 at the disposition of Congress. As this will, in equity, belong to
the Chinese Government, would not justice require its appropriation to some
benevolent object in which the Chinese may be specially interested?

Our minister to China, in obedience to his instructions, has remained
perfectly neutral in the war between Great Britain and France and the
Chinese Empire, although, in conjunction with the Russian minister, he was
ever ready and willing, had the opportunity offered, to employ his good
offices in restoring peace between the parties. It is but an act of simple
justice, both to our present minister and his predecessor, to state that
they have proved fully equal to the delicate, trying, and responsible
positions in which they have on different occasions been placed.

The ratifications of the treaty with Japan concluded at Yeddo on the 29th
July, 1858, were exchanged at Washington on the 22d May last, and the
treaty itself was proclaimed on the succeeding day. There is good reason to
expect that under its protection and influence our trade and intercourse
with that distant and interesting people will rapidly increase.

The ratifications of the treaty were exchanged with unusual solemnity. For
this purpose the Tycoon had accredited three of his most distinguished
subjects as envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary, who were
received and treated with marked distinction and kindness, both by the
Government and people of the United States. There is every reason to
believe that they have returned to their native land entirely satisfied
with their visit and inspired by the most friendly feelings for our
country. Let us ardently hope, in the language of the treaty itself, that
"there shall henceforward be perpetual peace and friendship between the
United States of America and His Majesty the Tycoon of Japan and his
successors."

With the wise, conservative, and liberal Government of the Empire of Brazil
our relations continue to be of the most amicable character.

The exchange of the ratifications of the convention with the Republic of
New Granada signed at Washington on the 10th of September, 1857, has been
long delayed from accidental causes for which neither party is censurable.
These ratifications were duly exchanged in this city on the 5th of November
last. Thus has a controversy been amicably terminated which had become so
serious at the period of my inauguration as to require me, on the 17th of
April, 1857, to direct our minister to demand his passports and return to
the United States.

Under this convention the Government of New Granada has specially
acknowledged itself to be responsible to our citizens "for damages which
were caused by the riot at Panama on the 15th April, 1856." These claims,
together with other claims of our citizens which had been long urged in
vain, are referred for adjustment to a board of commissioners. I submit a
copy of the convention to Congress, and recommend the legislation necessary
to carry it into effect.

Persevering efforts have been made for the adjustment of the claims of
American citizens against the Government of Costa Rica, and I am happy to
inform you that these have finally prevailed. A convention was signed at
the city of San Jose on the 2d July last, between the minister resident of
the United States in Costa Rica and the plenipotentiaries of that Republic,
referring these claims to a board of commissioners and providing for the
payment of their awards. This convention will be submitted immediately to
the Senate for their constitutional action.

The claims of our citizens upon the Republic of Nicaragua have not yet been
provided for by treaty, although diligent efforts for this purpose have
been made by our minister resident to that Republic. These are still
continued, with a fair prospect of success.

Our relations with Mexico remain in a most unsatisfactory condition. In my
last two annual messages I discussed extensively the subject of these
relations, and do not now propose to repeat at length the facts and
arguments then presented. They proved conclusively that our citizens
residing in Mexico and our merchants trading thereto had suffered a series
of wrongs and outrages such as we have never patiently borne from any other
nation. For these our successive ministers, invoking the faith of treaties,
had in the name of their country persistently demanded redress and
indemnification, but without the slightest effect. Indeed, so confident had
the Mexican authorities become of our patient endurance that they
universally believed they might commit these outrages upon American
citizens with absolute impunity. Thus wrote our minister in 1856, and
expressed the opinion that "nothing but a manifestation of the power of the
Government and of its purpose to punish these wrongs will avail."

Afterwards, in 1857, came the adoption of a new constitution for Mexico,
the election of a President and Congress under its provisions, and the
inauguration of the President. Within one short month, however, this
President was expelled from the capital by a rebellion in the army, and the
supreme power of the Republic was assigned to General Zuloaga. This usurper
was in his turn soon compelled to retire and give place to General
Miramon.

Under the constitution which had thus been adopted Senor Juarez, as chief
justice of the supreme court, became the lawful President of the Republic,
and it was for the maintenance of the constitution and his authority
derived from it that the civil war commenced and still continues to be
prosecuted.

Throughout the year 1858 the constitutional party grew stronger and
stronger. In the previous history of Mexico a successful military
revolution at the capital had almost universally been the signal for
submission throughout the Republic. Not so on the present occasion. A
majority of the citizens persistently sustained the constitutional
Government. When this was recognized, in April, 1859, by the Government of
the United States, its authority extended over a large majority of the
Mexican States and people, including Vera Cruz and all the other important
seaports of the Republic. From that period our commerce with Mexico began
to revive, and the constitutional Government has afforded it all the
protection in its power.

Meanwhile the Government of Miramon still held sway at the capital and over
the surrounding country, and continued its outrages against the few
American citizens who still had the courage to remain within its power. To
cap the climax, after the battle of Tacubaya, in April, 1859, General
Marquez ordered three citizens of the United States, two of them
physicians, to be seized in the hospital at that place, taken out and shot,
without crime and without trial. This was done, notwithstanding our
unfortunate countrymen were at the moment engaged in the holy cause of
affording relief to the soldiers of both parties who had been wounded in
the battle, without making any distinction between them.

The time had arrived, in my opinion, when this Government was bound to
exert its power to avenge and redress the wrongs of our citizens and to
afford them protection in Mexico. The interposing obstacle was that the
portion of the country under the sway of Miramon could not be reached
without passing over territory under the jurisdiction of the constitutional
Government. Under these circumstances I deemed it my duty to recommend to
Congress in my last annual message the employment of a sufficient military
force to penetrate into the interior, where the Government of Miramon was
to be found, with or, if need be, without the consent of the Juarez
Government, though it was not doubted that this consent could be obtained.
Never have I had a clearer conviction on any subject than of the justice as
well as wisdom of such a policy. No other alternative was left except the
entire abandonment of our fellow-citizens who had gone to Mexico under the
faith of treaties to the systematic injustice, cruelty, and oppression of
Miramon's Government. Besides, it is almost certain that the simple
authority to employ this force would of itself have accomplished all our
objects without striking a single blow. The constitutional Government would
then ere this have been established at the City of Mexico, and would have
been ready and willing to the extent of its ability to do us justice.

In addition--and I deem this a most important consideration--European
Governments would have been deprived of all pretext to interfere in the
territorial and domestic concerns of Mexico. We should thus have been
relieved from the obligation of resisting, even by force should this become
necessary, any attempt by these Governments to deprive our neighboring
Republic of portions of her territory--a duty from which we could not
shrink without abandoning the traditional and established policy of the
American people. I am happy to observe that, firmly relying upon the
justice and good faith of these Governments, there is no present danger
that such a contingency will happen.

Having discovered that my recommendations would not be sustained by
Congress, the next alternative was to accomplish in some degree, if
possible, the same objects by treaty stipulations with the constitutional
Government. Such treaties were accordingly concluded by our late able and
excellent minister to Mexico, and on the 4th of January last were submitted
to the Senate for ratification. As these have not yet received the final
action of that body, it would be improper for me to present a detailed
statement of their provisions. Still, I may be permitted to express the
opinion in advance that they are calculated to promote the agricultural,
manufacturing, and commercial interests of the country and to secure our
just influence with an adjoining Republic as to whose fortunes and fate we
can never feel indifferent, whilst at the same time they provide for the
payment of a considerable amount toward the satisfaction of the claims of
our injured fellow-citizens.

At the period of my inauguration I was confronted in Kansas by a
revolutionary government existing under what is called the "Topeka
constitution." Its avowed object was to subdue the Territorial government
by force and to inaugurate what was called the "Topeka government" in its
stead. To accomplish this object an extensive military organization was
formed, and its command intrusted to the most violent revolutionary
leaders. Under these circumstances it became my imperative duty to exert
the whole constitutional power of the Executive to prevent the flames of
civil war from again raging in Kansas, which in the excited state of the
public mind, both North and South, might have extended into the neighboring
States. The hostile parties in Kansas had been inflamed against each other
by emissaries both from the North and the South to a degree of malignity
without parallel in our history. To prevent actual collision and to assist
the civil magistrates in enforcing the laws, a strong detachment of the
Army was stationed in the Territory, ready to aid the marshal and his
deputies when lawfully called upon as a posse comitatus in the execution of
civil and criminal process. Still, the troubles in Kansas could not have
been permanently settled without an election by the people.

The ballot box is the surest arbiter of disputes among freemen. Under this
conviction every proper effort was employed to induce the hostile parties
to vote at the election of delegates to frame a State constitution, and
afterwards at the election to decide whether Kansas should be a slave or
free State.

The insurgent party refused to vote at either, lest this might be
considered a recognition on their part of the Territorial government
established by Congress. A better spirit, however, seemed soon after to
prevail, and the two parties met face to face at the third election, held
on the first Monday of January, 1858, for members of the legislature and
State officers under the Lecompton constitution. The result was the triumph
of the antislavery party at the polls. This decision of the ballot box
proved clearly that this party were in the majority, and removed the danger
of civil war. From that time we have heard little or nothing of the Topeka
government, and all serious danger of revolutionary troubles in Kansas was
then at an end.

The Lecompton constitution, which had been thus recognized at this State
election by the votes of both political parties in Kansas, was transmitted
to me with the request that I should present it to Congress. This I could
not have refused to do without violating my clearest and strongest
convictions of duty. The constitution and all the proceedings which
preceded and followed its formation were fair and regular on their face. I
then believed, and experience has proved, that the interests of the people
of Kansas would have been best consulted by its admission as a State into
the Union, especially as the majority within a brief period could have
amended the constitution according to their will and pleasure. If fraud
existed in all or any of these proceedings, it was not for the President
but for Congress to investigate and determine the question of fraud and
what ought to be its consequences. If at the first two elections the
majority refused to vote, it can not be pretended that this refusal to
exercise the elective franchise could invalidate an election fairly held
under lawful authority, even if they had not subsequently voted at the
third election. It is true that the whole constitution had not been
submitted to the people, as I always desired; but the precedents are
numerous of the admission of States into the Union without such submission.
It would not comport with my present purpose to review the proceedings of
Congress upon the Lecompton constitution. It is sufficient to observe that
their final action has removed the last vestige of serious revolutionary
troubles. The desperate hand recently assembled under a notorious outlaw in
the southern portion of the Territory to resist the execution of the laws
and to plunder peaceful citizens will, I doubt not be speedily subdued and
brought to justice.

Had I treated the Lecompton constitution as a nullity and refused to
transmit it to Congress, it is not difficult to imagine, whilst recalling
the position of the country at that moment, what would have been the
disastrous consequences, both in and out of the Territory, from such a
dereliction of duty on the part of the Executive.

Peace has also been restored within the Territory of Utah, which at the
commencement of my Administration was in a state of open rebellion. This
was the more dangerous, as the people, animated by a fanatical spirit and
intrenched within their distant mountain fastnesses, might have made a long
and formidable resistance. Cost what it might, it was necessary to bring
them into subjection to the Constitution and the laws. Sound policy,
therefore, as well as humanity, required that this object should if
possible be accomplished without the effusion of blood. This could only be
effected by sending a military force into the Territory sufficiently strong
to convince the people that resistance would be hopeless, and at the same
time to offer them a pardon for past offenses on condition of immediate
submission to the Government. This policy was pursued with eminent success,
and the only cause for regret is the heavy expenditure required to march a
large detachment of the Army to that remote region and to furnish it
subsistence.

Utah is now comparatively peaceful and quiet, and the military force has
been withdrawn, except that portion of it necessary to keep the Indians in
check and to protect the emigrant trains on their way to our Pacific
possessions.

In my first annual message I promised to employ my best exertions in
cooperation with Congress to reduce the expenditures of the Government
within the limits of a wise and judicious economy. An overflowing Treasury
had produced habits of prodigality and extravagance which could only be
gradually corrected. The work required both time and patience. I applied
myself diligently to this task from the beginning and was aided by the able
and energetic efforts of the heads of the different Executive Departments.
The result of our labors in this good cause did not appear in the sum total
of our expenditures for the first two years, mainly in consequence of the
extraordinary expenditure necessarily incurred in the Utah expedition and
the very large amount of the contingent expenses of Congress during this
period. These greatly exceeded the pay and mileage of the members. For the
year ending June 30, 1858, whilst the pay and mileage amounted to
$1,490,214, the contingent expenses rose to $2,093,309.79; and for the year
ending June 30, 1859, whilst the pay and mileage amounted to $859,093.66,
the contingent expenses amounted to $1,431,565.78. I am happy, however, to
be able to inform you that during the last fiscal year, ending June 30,
1860, the total expenditures of the Government in all its
branches--legislative, executive, and judicial--exclusive of the public
debt, were reduced to the sum of $55,402,465.46. This conclusively appears
from the books of the Treasury. In the year ending June 30, 1858, the total
expenditure, exclusive of the public debt, amounted to $71,901,129.77, and
that for the year ending June 30, 1859, to $66,346,226.13. Whilst the books
of the Treasury show an actual expenditure of $59,848,474.72 for the year
ending June 30, 1860, including $1,040,667.71 for the contingent expenses
of Congress, there must be deducted from this amount the sum of
$4,296,009.26, with the interest upon it of $150,000, appropriated by the
act of February 15, 1860, "for the purpose of supplying the deficiency in
the revenues and defraying the expenses of the Post-Office Department for
the year ending June 30, 1859." This sum therefore justly chargeable to the
year 1859, must be deducted from the sum of $59,848,474.72 in order to
ascertain the expenditure for the year ending June 30, 1860, which leaves a
balance for the expenditures of that year of $55,402,465.46. The interest
on the public debt, including Treasury notes, for the same fiscal year,
ending June 30, 1860, amounted to $3,177,314.62, which, added to the above
sum of $55,402,465.46, makes the aggregate of $58,579,780.08.

It ought in justice to be observed that several of the estimates from the
Departments for the year ending June 30, 1860, were reduced by Congress
below what was and still is deemed compatible with the public interest.
Allowing a liberal margin of $2,500,000 for this reduction and for other
causes, it may be safely asserted that the sum of $61,000,000, or, at the
most, $62,000,000, is amply sufficient to administer the Government and to
pay the interest on the public debt, unless contingent events should
hereafter render extraordinary expenditures necessary.

This result has been attained in a considerable degree by the care
exercised by the appropriate Departments in entering into public contracts.
I have myself never interfered with the award of any such contract, except
in a single case, with the Colonization Society, deeming it advisable to
cast the whole responsibility in each case on the proper head of the
Department, with the general instruction that these contracts should always
be given to the lowest and best bidder. It has ever been my opinion that
public contracts are not a legitimate source of patronage to be conferred
upon personal or political favorites, but that in all such cases a public
officer is bound to act for the Government as a prudent individual would
act for himself.

It is with great satisfaction I communicate the fact that since the date of
my last annual message not a single slave has been imported into the United
States in violation of the laws prohibiting the African slave trade. This
statement is rounded upon a thorough examination and investigation of the
subject. Indeed, the spirit which prevailed some time since among a portion
of our fellow-citizens in favor of this trade seems to have entirely
subsided.

I also congratulate you upon the public sentiment which now exists against
the crime of setting on foot military expeditions within the limits of the
United States to proceed from thence and make war upon the people of
unoffending States with whom we are at peace. In this respect a happy
change has been effected since the commencement of my Administration. It
surely ought to be the prayer of every Christian and patriot that such
expeditions may never again receive countenance in our country or depart
from our shores.

It would be a useless repetition to do more than refer with earnest
commendation to my former recommendations in favor of the Pacific railroad;
of the grant of power to the President to employ the naval force in the
vicinity for the protection of the lives and property of our
fellow-citizens passing in transit over the different Central American
routes against sudden and lawless outbreaks and depredations, and also to
protect American merchant vessels, their crews and cargoes, against violent
and unlawful seizure and confiscation in the ports of Mexico and the South
American Republics when these may be in a disturbed and revolutionary
condition. It is my settled conviction that without such a power we do not
afford that protection to those engaged in the commerce of the country
which they have a right to demand.

I again recommend to Congress the passage of a law, in pursuance of the
provisions of the Constitution, appointing a day certain previous to the
4th March in each year of an odd number for the election of Representatives
throughout all the States. A similar power has already been exercised, with
general approbation, in the appointment of the same day throughout the
Union for holding the election of electors for President and Vice-President
of the United States. My attention was earnestly directed to this subject
from the fact that the Thirty-fifth Congress terminated on the 3d March,
1859, without making the necessary appropriation for the service of the
Post-Office Department. I was then forced to consider the best remedy for
this omission, and an immediate call of the present Congress was the
natural resort. Upon inquiry, however, I ascertained that fifteen out of
the thirty-three States composing the Confederacy were without
Representatives, and that consequently these fifteen States would be
disfranchised by such a call. These fifteen States will be in the same
condition on the 4th March next. Ten of them can not elect Representatives,
according to existing State laws, until different periods, extending from
the beginning of August next until the months of October and November. In
my last message I gave warning that in a time of sudden and alarming danger
the salvation of our institutions might depend upon the power of the
President immediately to assemble a full Congress to meet the emergency.

It is now quite evident that the financial necessities of the Government
will require a modification of the tariff during your present session for
the purpose of increasing the revenue. In this aspect, I desire to
reiterate the recommendation contained in my last two annual messages in
favor of imposing specific instead of ad valorem duties on all imported
articles to which these can be properly applied. From long observation and
experience I am convinced that specific duties are necessary, both to
protect the revenue and to secure to our manufacturing interests that
amount of incidental encouragement which unavoidably results from a revenue
tariff.

As an abstract proposition it may be admitted that ad valorem duties would
in theory be the most just and equal. But if the experience of this and of
all other commercial nations has demonstrated that such duties can not be
assessed and collected without great frauds upon the revenue, then it is
the part of wisdom to resort to specific duties. Indeed, from the very
nature of an ad valorem duty this must be the result. Under it the
inevitable consequence is that foreign goods will be entered at less than
their true value. The Treasury will therefore lose the duty on the
difference between their real and fictitious value, and to this extent we
are defrauded.

The temptations which ad valorem duties present to a dishonest importer are
irresistible. His object is to pass his goods through the custom-house at
the very lowest valuation necessary to save them from confiscation. In this
he too often succeeds in spite of the vigilance of the revenue officers.
Hence the resort to false invoices, one for the purchaser and another for
the custom-house, and to other expedients to defraud the Government. The
honest importer produces his invoice to the collector, stating the actual
price at which he purchased the articles abroad. Not so the dishonest
importer and the agent of the foreign manufacturer. And here it may be
observed that a very large proportion of the manufactures imported from
abroad are consigned for sale to commission merchants, who are mere agents
employed by the manufacturers. In such cases no actual sale has been made
to fix their value. The foreign manufacturer, if he be dishonest, prepares
an invoice of the goods, not at their actual value, but at the very lowest
rate necessary to escape detection. In this manner the dishonest importer
and the foreign manufacturer enjoy a decided advantage over the honest
merchant. They are thus enabled to undersell the fair trader and drive him
from the market. In fact the operation of this system has already driven
from the pursuits of honorable commerce many of that class of regular and
conscientious merchants whose character throughout the world is the pride
of our country.

The remedy for these evils is to be found in specific duties, so far as
this may be practicable. They dispense with any inquiry at the custom-house
into the actual cost or value of the article, and it pays the precise
amount of duty previously fixed by law. They present no temptations to the
appraisers of foreign goods, who receive but small salaries, and might by
undervaluation in a few cases render themselves independent.

Besides, specific duties best conform to the requisition in the
Constitution that "no preference shall be given by any regulation of
commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another." Under
our ad valorem system such preferences are to some extent inevitable, and
complaints have often been made that the spirit of this provision has been
violated by a lower appraisement of the same articles at one port than at
another.

An impression strangely enough prevails to some extent that specific duties
are necessarily protective duties. Nothing can be more fallacious. Great
Britain glories in free trade, and yet her whole revenue from imports is at
the present moment collected under a system of specific duties. It is a
striking fact in this connection that in the commercial treaty of January
23, 1860, between France and England one of the articles provides that the
ad valorem duties which it imposes shall be converted into specific duties
within six months from its date, and these are to be ascertained by making
an average of the prices for six months previous to that time. The reverse
of the propositions would be nearer to the truth, because a much larger
amount of revenue would be collected by merely converting the ad valorem
duties of a tariff into equivalent specific duties. To this extent the
revenue would be increased, and in the same proportion the specific duty
might be diminished.

Specific duties would secure to the American manufacturer the incidental
protection to which he is fairly entitled under a revenue tariff, and to
this surely no person would object. The framers of the existing tariff have
gone further, and in a liberal spirit have discriminated in favor of large
and useful branches of our manufactures, not by raising the rate of duty
upon the importation of similar articles from abroad, but, what is the same
in effect, by admitting articles free of duty which enter into the
composition of their fabrics.

Under the present system it has been often truly remarked that this
incidental protection decreases when the manufacturer needs it most and
increases when he needs it least, and constitutes a sliding scale which
always operates against him. The revenues of the country are subject to
similar fluctuations. Instead of approaching a steady standard, as would be
the case under a system of specific duties, they sink and rise with the
sinking and rising prices of articles in foreign countries. It would not be
difficult for Congress to arrange a system of specific duties which would
afford additional stability both to our revenue and our manufactures and
without injury or injustice to any interest of the country. This might be
accomplished by ascertaining the average value of any given article for a
series of years at the place of exportation and by simply converting the
rate of ad valorem duty upon it which might be deemed necessary for revenue
purposes into the form of a specific duty. Such an arrangement could not
injure the consumer. If he should pay a greater amount of duty one year,
this would be counterbalanced by a lesser amount the next, and in the end
the aggregate would be the same.

I desire to call your immediate attention to the present condition of the
Treasury, so ably and clearly presented by the Secretary in his report to
Congress, and to recommend that measures be promptly adopted to enable it
to discharge its pressing obligations. The other recommendations of the
report are well worthy of your favorable consideration.

I herewith transmit to Congress the reports of the Secretaries of War, of
the Navy, of the Interior, and of the Postmaster-General. The
recommendations and suggestions which they contain are highly valuable and
deserve your careful attention.

The report of the Postmaster-General details the circumstances under which
Cornelius Vanderbilt, on my request, agreed in the month of July last to
carry the ocean mails between our Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Had he not
thus acted this important intercommunication must have been suspended, at
least for a season. The Postmaster-General had no power to make him any
other compensation than the postages on the mail matter which he might
carry. It was known at the time that these postages would fall far short of
an adequate compensation, as well as of the sum which the same service had
previously cost the Government. Mr. Vanderbilt, in a commendable spirit,
was willing to rely upon the justice of Congress to make up the deficiency,
and I therefore recommend that an appropriation may be granted for this
purpose.

I should do great injustice to the Attorney-General were I to omit the
mention of his distinguished services in the measures adopted and
prosecuted by him for the defense of the Government against numerous and
unfounded claims to land in California purporting to have been made by the
Mexican Government previous to the treaty of cession. The successful
opposition to these claims has saved the United States public property
worth many millions of dollars and to individuals holding title under them
to at least an equal amount.

It has been represented to me from sources which I deem reliable that the
inhabitants in several portions of Kansas have been reduced nearly to a
state of starvation on account of the almost total failure of their crops,
whilst the harvests in every other portion of the country have been
abundant. The prospect before them for the approaching winter is well
calculated to enlist the sympathies of every heart. The destitution appears
to be so general that it can not be relieved by private contributions, and
they are in such indigent circumstances as to be unable to purchase the
necessaries of life for themselves. I refer the subject to Congress. If any
constitutional measure for their relief can be devised, I would recommend
its adoption.

I cordially commend to your favorable regard the interests of the people of
this District. They are eminently entitled to your consideration,
especially since, unlike the people of the States, they can appeal to no
government except that of the Union.