back from storage, &c., making a total sum of over $1,800,000, which is directly appropriated. This sum is not equal to the two millions reported in this case. It is about the same originally reported as expended in 1846, because then there was no such drawback for storage, drayage, and labor, which now amounts to two hundred and forty or two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, and which is therefore to be deducted from the sum expended that year. This deduction will bring it down to about that sum.

Then, sir, I do not doubt that the retrenchments have been properly made. I do not expect that any officer of the Government should dismiss his own employees, unless he is coerced to it by specific appropriations. I do not expect that where his predecessor had a certain number of clerks, &c., he will carry his retrenchment into effect by dismissing the employees of his own department. It is not to be expected of any man; and I trust it will not be expected of the present Secretary of the Treasury that he should limit the expenses of the collection of the revenue.

The Senator from Maryland seems to suppose, however, that a new charge, heretofore paid by the Secretary of the Treasury, is to be thrown upon the expenses of collecting the revenue, or upon the importers. Now, I think that is not the case. Heretofore, as I understand, the Government has employed draymen, laborers, and clerks. For all the labor, the drayage, and storage, the Government originally pays, and this is refunded when the goods are taken out. Now, by the act of March 3, 1849, Government will still pay out the amount for labor, storage, and drayage, and when the goods are taken from the warehouses, it will be repaid by the importer; but this sum, thus paid, instead of going back to the general fund, goes to the specific fund. This is all the difference. Now it goes to the specific fund; formerly it went to the gencral fund. This I understand to be the whole difference.

As to the policy of abolishing the warehousing system, I should oppose it rather more than the change in the collection of the revenue. I believe, sir, that it equalizes the revenue of the country, through different years; that it increases the imports by giving additional facilities to importers, and reduces the expenses of imported articles. This, surely must be the reason of the whole opposition which has heretofore come against it; because it comes in aid of the importer, and because it reduces the price of foreign goods. I, sir, am the

advocate of free-trade-free-trade, so far as it is consistent with a revenue tariff. Holding that this warehousing system comes into that general policy, I believe it will equalize the amount collected in two different years, and equalize the number of employees necessary to be kept in the service of the Government. There will necessarily be periods when there will be small importations, followed by periods when there will be great imports. Both of these extremes tend against the treasury, because, when the imports are great, additional clerks are required; and when the imports are small, the clerks are in the employ of the Government, and cannot be dismissed.

I find that the Secretary of the Treasury, in his annual report of this year, states the amount of the additional expenditure at $194,634 66 beyond the storage. Now, sir, I think our attention ought to be attracted to that point. If our public warehouses are to cost so much beyond storage, it is time that we should allow private individuals to keep storehouses. It is a striking fact that this sum should be drawn from the treasury of the United States to support these storehouses, when private individuals can afford to keep public storehouses at the same time and can make money out of it.

But, sir, is this sum of $194,000 properly chargeable to the warehouses? I contend that it is not. I contend that a distinction should be made. There has always been a period when service was required of labor, drayage, &c., just as it is now, and the difference only between that formerly required and that now required is all that should have been charged upon the warehouses. Let us see how far the warehouse system has been increased. The total of foreign exports from the 6th of August, 1846, to the 6th of September, 1848, as I learn from executive document No. 57, adding the balance of the year at the same rate, will be about $104,908,288. In nearly the same time, (for the periods do not exactly coincide,) Mr. Meredith reports a total sum of $87,352,000. Now, the probable duties collected upon this for the lower price goods do not go into the warehouses-will be the sum of $2,600,000, at 10 per cent. I believe it has been estimated at more than 10 per cent., but I take that as a very low rate. These storehouses increase the revenue, and the balance of $194,000 is not properly charged to them, since they, by facilitating the importations, increase the revenue to a much larger amount.

I am willing to concede, Mr. President, that by the creation of new collection districts, and by the extension of our com

merce, some additional expenditure must take place in the collection of the revenue. I am willing, therefore, I say, to support the amendment of the Senator from New York, [Mr. DICKINSON], and increase the sum; though I desire it to be distinctly understood that it is not to be added to the $1,560,000, but to the $1,800,000. Unless the whole proviso is repealed, this will be an addition which will make it $2,000,000. If the Committee on Finance believe that sum to be necessary, I shall not object to it, or to any other specific sum, within any moderate limit; but I shall insist upon preserving the principle of making specific appropriation, by which means we shall know what sum is expended, and by which means we may curtail unnecessary expenditures.

I have no fears, Mr. President, that the turning out of a great number of the employees in the custom-houses, the reduction of the revenue cutters, and the abandoning of many custom-houses, kept up merely for preventive purposes, will be likely to work any great evil. This is a people morally opposed to smugglers; and I know of no other country in the world which can make the same boast. I believe our people reprobate a smuggler, and that very little smuggling has occurred, or is likely to occur. So far as the revenue cutters are concerned, as preventives of smuggling, I do not believe it to be necessary or useful to keep them up. All these, I think, are proper economical reductions of the expenses of the collection.

Nor, on the other hand, am I at all concerned that the duties of the employees of the custom-houses are becoming too onerous, or that the reduction of their salaries would render the offices less an object of pursuit. If such was to be the effect, I should hail it most joyously. If it would reduce that thirst for public office, which I consider now as a great and growing evil in the country, I should hail it as a great benefit. I should be happy to see anything in their reduction, accomplished by legislative reform or otherwise, to rebuke the practice of those who abandon their private pursuits to feed upon the Federal Government. I think that this tendency is inevitable to the greatest political corruption which we have to fear.

Nor, sir, do I object at all to these reforms being very extensively made by the Secretary. It is a part of his duty, as the head of the Treasury Department, that he should report all reforms which he deems to be practicable. He is but discharging his duty. We ought to make the specifle appropriation which shall drive the Secretary of the Treasury into reforms he would be unwilling to make otherwise. We should do by him as we do

by every other officer, and hold him responsible; limiting the expenditures to a certain number of dollars.

On these grounds, and actuated by no particular reference to the individual who may exercise the functions of this or any other office, I shall give my vote. So far as I am politically opposed to any Administration, I shall not upon such narrow measures attempt to thwart its officers. I am willing to do for this Administration as much as though I politically coincided with them. I understand this to be the policy advocated by the last Administration, and introduced by the Secretary of the Treasury of the last Administration, which comes down to us through the last Congress, where our political opponents held the majority in the House of Representatives, and the same policy applied to every other department and every other expenditure.

Remarks of Jefferson Davis on the resolution of inquiry relative to the appointments by the President in California. Jan. 1850.

17,

Mr. CLEMENS. I am glad to hear the honorable Senator's statement. I am glad that this episode is happily ended; and to the honorable Senator from Mississippi I will take occasion to say that there is no man in this body for whom I have a more sincere respect or kinder feelings. He has, as he has a right to do, presumed on an acquaintance of long standing and many acts of kindness extended to me, to set me right, as he says, in this matter. I may not be right in saying that the entire body of the northern Democracy are against us, but I am not wrong in saying that there is not a Legislature, Democratic or Whig, north of Mason and Dixon's line, that has not instructed its Senators to do what the Legislature of my State has declared to be a cause for the dissolution of the Union.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa. You are wrong. The Legislature of my State has never done it.

Mr. CLEMENS. I am glad that there are some of them who have not done so. But there are representatives here who do not need to be instructed. It is true, however, sir, that

Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. Will my friend allow me to interpose a single remark?

Mr. CLEMENS. Certainly.

Mr. DAVIS. I would say, then, and I say it to him with the more confidence on account of the high regard I have for him, and the sympathy I have in his present position. I am myself

subject to the same feelings of excitement, and especially on this subject. It is a subject on which we all feel, and feel deeply, and on which we are apt to speak strongly. But is it well to reopen the wounds which have already been inflicted in this sectional strife on the Union? Is it well to point to the wrongdoings of others, that they may recriminate on us, and widen the breach which already exists, and increase the danger which already threatens us? I ask my friend to calm himself, in order that his remarks may only be applicable to so much of this discussion as has a bearing on his position in connection with this resolution.

Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi. The Senator is right. I interrupted the Senator just at the point when he was going into the proofs to show how far the Democracy of the North is infected with the spirit of abolitionism. What his conclusion would have been, therefore, he has a perfect right to say that no one can know. What proofs he intended to submit, it is impossible for any one to say. I trust, therefore, that advantage will not be taken, to comment upon the few remarks that the honorable Senator did submit in part, as he was induced to give way at that point for the very wholesome purpose of stopping an agitation which might lead to still more disagreeable consequences.

I am one of those who have seen northern Democrats stand firm under the most trying circumstances; and I admired them the more for the danger which I believe they encountered in their advocacy of our rights. The Senator from New York [Mr. DICKINSON] has come out more boldly to-day in the expression of his opinions than ever before; and I venture to affirm, that never was he so poorly sustained at home as in the present crisis. I admire him the more that his courage rises the higher, the greater the danger which surrounds him. He expresses hopes which I trust will be fulfilled. I trust that the dangers which now threaten will be removed, and that the further discussion of this question will prove that he is not alone upon this floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER, (interposing.) Does the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. DowNS] yield the floor?

Mr. DOWNS. For explanation.

Mr. DAVIS resumed. The Senator from New York has not been alone. Other Senators have been ready to sustain the Constitution, though they may have been against the institution in the abstract. They have frequently taken occasion to avow that although, as an abstract opinion, they were opposed to slavery, yet, in their legislative action, they were ready to stand by the Constitution. Nor is this confined entirely to our own