crease and the description of force of which the addition should consist, and till the department is properly organized and in a condition to enforce exact responsibility and economy in its disbursements. That the department is not now properly organized and in that condition, we have the authority of the secretary himself, in which I concur. I am satisfied that its administration cannot be made effective under the present organization, particularly as it regards its expenditures. I have very great respect for the head of the department, and confidence in his ability and integrity. If he would hear the voice of one who wishes him well, and who takes the deepest interest in the branch of service of which he is the chief, my advice would be, to take time; to look about; to reorganize the department in the most efficient manner, on the staff principle; and to establish the most rigid accountability and economy in the disbursements before the great work of a systematic increase is commenced. Till that is done, add not a dollar to the expenditure. Make sure of the foundation before you begin to rear the superstructure. I am aware that there will be a considerable increase this year in the navy, compared to the expenditure of last year, in consequence of the acts of the extraordinary session. This may deduct several hundred thousand dollars from the amount I propose to retrench; but I cannot doubt that an improved administration of the moneyed affairs of the department, with the very great reduction in prices and wages, a saving may be made more than sufficient to make up for that deduction. In speaking of improved administration, I comprehend the marine corps. And here I deem it my duty to remark, that the estimates for that branch of the service appear to me to be very large. The corps is estimated at one thousand privates, and its aggregate expense at $502,292. This strikes me to be far too large for so small a corps, of long standing, stationed at convenient and cheap points, and at a period when the price of provisions, clothing, and all other articles of supply is low. A large portion, I observe, is for barracks, which, if proper at all, surely may be postponed till the finances are placed in better condition.

I shall now pass from the naval to the military department; and here I find an estimate of $1,508,032 13 for harbours, creeks, and the like. I must say that I am surprised at this estimate. All who have been members of the Senate for the last eight or ten years must be familiar with the history of this item of expenditure. It is one of the branches of the old, exploded American System, and almost the only one which remains. It has never been acquiesced in, and was scarcely tolerated when the treasury was full to overflowing with the surplus revenue. Of all the extrav. agant and lawless appropriations of the worst of times, I have ever regarded it as the most objectionable-unconstitutional, local in its character, and unequal and unjust in its operation. Little did I anticipate that such an item, and of so large an amount, would at this time be found in the estimates, when the treasury is deeply embarrassed, the credit of the government impaired, and the revenue from the lands surrendered to the states and territories. Such an item, at such a period, looks like infatuation; and I hope the Committee on Finance, when it comes to take up the estimates, will strike it out. It certainly ought to be expunged, and I shall, accordingly, place it among the items that ought to be retrenched.

Passing to the treasury department, I observe an estimate of $43,932 for surveys of public lands; and, under the head of "balances of appropriations on the 31st of December, 1841, required to be expended in 1842," $200,000 for the same object: making together $243,932, which ought either not to be in the estimates, or, if put there, ought to be credited in the

receipts of the year. The reason will be apparent when it is stated that the Distribution Act deducts the expenses incident to the administration of the public lands, and, among others, that for surveying; and, of course, it must be deducted from the revenue from the lands, before it is distributed among the states, and brought to the credit of the treasury. It is, in fact, but an advance out of the land fund, to be deducted from it before it is distributed. There are several other items in the estimates connected with the expenses incident to the administration of the publie lands to which the same remarks are applicable, and which would make an additional deduction of many thousand dollars, but the exact amount of which I have not had time to ascertain. These several items, taken together, make the sum of $4,317,322 25, that may fairly be struck from the estimates. To these there are, doubtless, many others of considerable amount that might be added, had I the time and means for full investigation. Among them, I would call the attention of the chairman to an item of $158,627 17, under the name of "patent fund," and comprised among the balances of appropriations on the 31st of December last, and which will be required for this year. I have not had time to investigate it, and am uninformed of its nature. I must ask the chairmain to explain. Does it mean receipts of money derived from payments for patents? If so, it ought to be passed to the treasury, and classed under the receipts of the year, and not the appropriations, unless, indeed, there be some act of Congress which has ordered otherwise. If it be an appropriation, I would ask, To what is it appropriated, and to what particular objects is it to be applied this year? The chairman will find it in page 40 of the document containing the estimates.

I would ask the chairman, also, whether the interest on the trust funds, including both the Smithsonian and Indian, which may not be applied to the object of the trusts during the year, have been comprehended in the receipts of the year? We pay interest on them, and have the right, of course, to their use till required to be paid over. The interest must be considerable. That of the former alone is about $30,000 annually.

I would also call his attention to the pension list. I observe the diminution of the number of pensioners for the last year is very considerable, and, from the extreme age of the revolutionary portion, there must be a rapid diminution till the list is finally closed. I have not had time to investigate the subject sufficiently to say to what amount the treasury may be relieved from that source, but I am informed, by a friend who is familiar with the subject, that a very great reduction of expenditure, say $300,000 annually, for some years, may be expected under that head. Under these various heads, and others, which a careful examination might designate, I feel confident that a reduction might be made by retrenchment in the estimates to the amount of the sum proposed to be borrowed by this bill, as amended, without materially impairing the efficiency of the government.

I shall next proceed to examine what reduction may be made by strict economy in the public disbursements; by which I mean, not parsimony, but that careful and efficient administration of the moneyed affairs of the government which guards against all abuse and waste, and applies every dollar to the object of appropriations, and that in the manner best calcu lated to produce the greatest result. This high duty properly appertains to the functions of the executive, and Congress can do but little more than to urge on and sustain that department of the government to which it belongs in discharging it, and which must take the lead in the work of economy and reform. My object is to show that there is ample room for the work, and that great reduction may be made in the expenditures by

such an administration of the moneyed affairs of the government as I have described. But how is this to be made apparent? Can it be done by minute examination of the various items of the estimates and expenditures? Can a general state of looseness, of abuses, or extravagance in the disbursements, be detected and exposed by such examination? All attempts of the kind have failed, and must continue to do so. It would be impracticable to extend such an inquiry through the various heads of expenditures. A single account might be selected, that would occupy a committee a large portion of a session; and, after all their labour, it would be more than an even chance that they would fail to detect abuses and mismanagement, if they abounded ever so much. They lie beyond the accounts, and can only be reached by the searching and scrutinizing eyes of faithful and vigilant officers charged with the administrative supervision.

There is but one way in which Congress can act with effect in testing whether the public funds have been judiciously and economically applied to the objects for which they were appropriated, and, if not, of holding those charged with their administration responsible; and that is, by comparing the present expenditures with those of past periods of acknowl edged economy, or foreign contemporaneous service of like kind. If, on such comparison, the differences should be much greater than they should be, after making due allowance, those who have the control should be held responsible to reduce them to a proper level, or to give satisfactory reasons for not doing it; and that is the course which I intend to pursue. They who now have the control, both of Congress and the executive department, came into power on a solemn pledge of reform; and it is but fair that they should be held responsible for the reformation of the abuses and mismanagement which they declared to exist, and the great reduction of expenses which they pledged themselves to make if the people should raise them to power.

But I am not so unreasonable as to expect that reform can be the work of a day. I know too well the labour and the time it requires to entertain any such opinion. All I ask is, that the work shall be early, seriously, and systematically commenced. It is to be regretted that it has not already commenced, and that there is so little apparent inclination to begin. We had a right to expect that the chairman of the Committee on Finance, in bringing forward a new loan of $5,000,000, would have at least undertaken to inform us, after a full survey of the estimates and expenditures, whether any reduction could be made, and, if any, to what amount, before he asked for a vote making so great an addition to the public debt. I cannot but regard the omission as a bad omen. It looks like repudiation of solemn pledges. But what he has failed to do I shall attempt, but in a much less full and satisfactory manner than he might have done, with all his advantages as the head of the committee. For the purpose of comparing, I shall select the years 1823 and 1840. I select the former because it is one of the years of the second term of Mr. Monroe's administration, and which, it is admitted now, administered the moneyed affairs of the government with a reasonable regard to economy; but at that time it was thought by all to be liberal in its expenditures, and by some even profuse, as several senators whom I now see, and who were then members of Congress, will bear witness. But I select it for a still stronger reason. It is the year which immediately preceded the first act professedly passed on the principles of the protective policy. The intervening time between the two periods comprehends the two acts of 1824 and 1828, by which that policy was carried to such great extremes. To those acts, connected with the banking system, and the connexion of the banks with the government, is NNN

to be attributed that train of events which has involved the country and the government in so many difficulties; and, among others, that vast increase of expenditures which has taken place since 1823, as will be shown by the comparison I am about to make.

The disbursements of the government are comprised under three great heads: the civil list, including foreign intercourse and miscellaneous; the military; and the navy. I propose to begin with the first, and take them in the order in which they stand.

The expenditures under the first head have increased since 1823, when they were $2,022,093, to $5,492,030 98, the amount in 1840; showing an increase, in seventeen years, of 27 to 1, while the population has increased only about to 1, that is, about 75 per cent.; making the increase of expenditures, compared to the increase of population, about 3 to 1. This enormous increase has taken place although a large portion of the expenditures under this head, consisting of salaries to officers and the pay of mem bers of Congress, have remained unchanged. The next year, in 1841, the expenditure rose to $6,196,560. I am, however, happy to perceive a considerable reduction in the estimates for this year compared with the last and several preceding years; but still leaving room for great additional reduction to bring the increase of expenditures to the same ratio with the increase of population, as liberal as that standard of increase would be.

That the Senate may form some conception, in detail, of this enormous increase, I propose to go more into particulars in reference to two itemsthe contingent expenses of the two houses of Congress, and that of collecting the duties on imports. The latter, though of a character belonging to the civil list, is not included in it, or either of the other heads; as the expenses incident to collecting the customs are deducted from the receipts before the money is paid into the treasury.

The contingent expenses (they exclude the pay and mileage of members) of the Senate, in 1823, were $12,841 07, of which the.printing cost $6349 56, and stationary $1631 51; and that of the House $37,848 95, of which the printing cost $22,314 41, and the stationary $3877 71. In 1840, the contingent expenses of the Senate were $77,447 22, of which the printing cost $31,285 32, and the stationary $7061 77; and that of the House $199,219 57, of which the printing cost $65,086 46, and the stationary $36,352 99. The aggregate expenses of the two houses together rose from $50,690 02 to $276,666, being an actual increase of 5 to 1, and an increase, in proportion to population, of about 7 to 1. But, as enormous as this increase is, the fact that the number of members had increased not more than about ten per cent. from 1823 to 1840, is calculated to make it still more strikingly so. Had the increase kept pace with the increase of members (and there is no good reason why it should greatly exceed it), the expenditures would have risen from $50,690 to $55,759 only, making an increase of but $5069; but, instead of that, it rose to $276,666, making an increase of $225,970. To place the subject in a still more striking view, the contingent expenses in 1823 were at the rate of $144 per member, which one would suppose was ample, and in 1840, $942. This vast increase took place under the immediate eyes of Congress; and yet we were told at the extra session, by the present chairman of the Finance Committee, that there was no room for economy, and that no reduction could be made; and even in this discussion he has intimated that little can be done. As enormous as are the contingent ex. penses of the two houses, I infer, from the very great increase of expenditures under the head of civil list generally, when so large a portion is for fixed salaries, which have not been materially increased for the last seventeen years, that they are not much less so throughout the whole range of this branch of the public service.

98

100

I shall now proceed to the other item, which I have selected for more particular examination, the increased expenses of collecting the duties on imports. In 1823 it was $766,699, equal to 3,3 per cent. on the amount collected, and on the aggregate amount of imports; and in 1840 it had increased to $1,542,319 24, equal to 14 per cent. on the amount collected, and to 158 on the aggregate amount of the imports, being an actual increase of nearly a million, and considerably more than double the amount of 1823. In 1839 it rose to $1,714,515.

From these facts, there can be little doubt that more than a million annually may be saved under the two items of contingent expenses of Congress and the collection of the customs, without touching the other great items comprised under the civil list, the executive and judicial departments, the foreign intercourse, lighthouses, and miscellaneous. would be safe to put down a saving of at least half a million for them.

It

I shall now pass to the military, with which I am more familiar. I propose to confine my remarks almost entirely to the army proper, including the Military Academy, in reference to which the information is more full and minute. I exclude the expenses incident to the Florida war, and the expenditures for the ordnance, the engineer, the topographical, the Indian, and the pension bureaus. Instead of 1823, for which there is no official and exact statement of the expenses of the army, I shall take 1821, for which there is one made by myself, as secretary of war, and for the minute correctness of which I can vouch. It is contained in a report made under a call of the House of Representatives, and comprises a comparative statement of the expenses of the army proper for the years 1818, 1819, 1820, 1821, respectively, and an estimate of the expense of 1822. It may be proper to add, which I can with confidence, that the comparative expense of 1823, if it could be ascertained, would be found to be not less favourable than 1821. It would, probably, be something

more so.

The

With these remarks, I shall begin with a comparison, in the first place, between 1821 and the estimate for the army proper for this year. average aggregate strength of the army in the year 1821, including officers, professors, cadets, and soldiers, was 8109, and the proportion of officers, including the professors of the Military Academy, to the soldiers, including cadets, was 1 to 12, and the expenditure $2,180,093 53,* equal to $263 91 for each individual. The estimate for the army proper, for the year 1842, including the Military Academy, is $4,453,370 16. The actual strength of the army, according to the return accompanying the message at the opening of the session, was $11,169. Assuming this to be the average strength for this year, and adding for the average number of the academy, professors and cadets, 300, it will give, within a very small fraction, $390 for each individual, making a difference of $136 in favour of 1821. How far the increase of pay, and the additional expense of two regiments of dragoons, compared to other descriptions of troops, would justify this increase, I am not prepared to say. In other respects, I should suppose, there ought to be a decrease rather than an increase, as the price of clothing, provisions, forage, and other articles of supply, as well as transportation, is, I presume, cheaper than in 1821. The proportion of officers to soldiers I would suppose to be less in 1842 than 1821, and, of course, as far as that has influence, the expense of the former ought to be less per man than the latter. With this brief and imperfect comparison between the expense of 1821 and the estimates for this year, I shall proceed to a more minute and full comparison between the former and the year 1837. I select that year, because the strength of the * See Document 38 (H. R.), 1st Session, 17th Congress. E