3. Statement of the Receipts into the National Treasury, from Customs, Internal Revenue and Direct Taxes, and sales of Public Lands, fractions of a dollar being excluded.

*For the year ending June 30.

4.

Statement of the Expenditures of the United States, exclusive of payments on account of the Public Debt, and from Trust Funds, fractions excluded.

5. Statement of the Debt of the United States, the Total Value of Imports and Exports, and the Total Tonnage, from 1791 to 1845.

XI. HOW MUCH DOES THE GOVERNMENT COST

in the United States and in Great Britain?

A Republican government will always be noted for the economical administration of its affairs. When the people tax themselves, they will take good care to make the burden as light as possible. In the case of war, indeed, the excitement of passion and patriotism may lead to a lavish expenditure, and much money will probably be wasted, because the power. and responsibility must be divided among many persons, who have comparatively but little experience on account of frequent changes in office; while in a monarchy, the reins are all held in one hand, and a permanent ministry is more able to avoid the enormous expense that is usually caused by frequent changes of plan and much vacillation of purpose. But in peace, the merit of different administrations will be estimated almost exclusively by their relative cheapness; he who lessens the amount of taxation is always sure of the gratitude of the people. There is danger, indeed, that frugality will be carried to excess, and some of the higher interests of the people be sacrificed to their inconsiderate and ill-timed parsimony. That is false economy which dries up some of the distant sources of wealth in the attempt to save a few drops to the broad stream which rolls by our doors.

The government of this country is supposed to be the cheapest in the civilized world. Probably it is so; but exaggerated statements upon the subject are often made by those who are not conversant enough with our institutions to know where the greatest expense is incurred, nor in what quarters prodigality and wastefulness may exist without punishment or detection. The small salaries of persons in office are usually taken as a decisive proof of economy; but the saving thus made is often more than balanced by the unnecessary multiplication of such offices, and by carelessness or peculation in the administration of public works and in the performance of jobs by contract. The higher class of officers of the custom-house are not so well paid here as in Great Britain; but the aggregate expense of collection bears a higher ratio to the amount collected than it does in England. A similar remark is applicable also to the post-office. The British minister at Washington, we believe, has a higher salary than the President of the United States; the British minister to France certainly receives more than twice as much. The Lord Chief Justice of England has a larger salary than all the nine judges of our Supreme Court united. An English consul often has higher pay than an American ambassador; and it is a striking proof of the inequality of our system, that the same remark may be made of more than one American consul. The cost of building a ship-of-war at one of our navy yards is about twice as great as it would be if furnished by private contract. But the expenses of our government are most frequently underestimated

from losing sight of the division of labor and cost among the national, state, and city or town authorities. The whole cost of the state institutions is interpolated, as it were, between the national and civic expenditures, which create the whole burden of taxation in most European countries. Owing to the inclination of the people in this country, especially in New England, to keep as much of the administration of public affairs in their own hands as possible, the town or city taxes are often larger than all those of the state and the national government united. There is very little centralization of power; much of the tax is voted, and many of the appropriations are made, directly by the people, in their primary assemblies.

It becomes a problem of much interest and considerable difficulty, then, to determine the aggregate cost of government in this country, and thus to compare the burden of taxation in the United States with what it is in England. We can obtain only an approximate solution. The weight of taxation can be properly estimated only by its relation to the wealth of the country; the same burden becomes light or heavy in proportion to the ability of the people to bear it. But the aggregate of national wealth escapes all calculation or probable estimate. There are no data on which to found even a plausible conjecture on this point. Valuations of all the real and personal estate within certain towns and states are often formed, it is true, and for the very purpose of taxation; but these give only a rude approximation to the relative wealth of individuals, towns, and counties; or they may enable us to compare one year with another, so as to show the progress of wealth in the community. No one supposes that they give the true amount of absolute wealth. Many kinds of property are excluded from them altogether; others are admitted at a rate known to be far below their real value. In different states, also, they are formed on wholly different principles, so they do not enable us to compare one state with another.

The corrected aggregate valuation of all real and personal property in the state of New York, in 1845, was but $605,646,095; the city of New York alone probably contains as much wealth as this. The aggregate of state, city, and town taxes in the same year was $4,170,527 95, which is a rate of 6 mills and 888 thousandths of a mill on a dollar of this assumed valuation. The actual rate of taxation for these purposes cannot have been more than one mill on the dollar, or one thousandth part of the whole property. The valuation of all wealth in Massachusetts, in 1840, was nearly 300 millions, - about half as great as New York, while the population is little more than one fourth as large. The valuation of Boston in 1845 was about 136 millions; its actual wealth greatly exceeds this sum. No returns are made in Massachusetts to show the aggregate amount of town and city taxes throughout the commonwealth.

The valuation of the state of Ohio in 1845 professes to give the aggregate only of that property which is taxable by law; the amount is