Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[graphic]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

MEMBERS OF THE CABINET OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON, AND OF THE FORTIETH CONGRESS, THIRD SESSION.

PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S CABINET.

Secretary of State—WIIAM H. SEWARD, of New York.

Secretary of the Treasury—HUGH McCULLOCH, of Indiana.

Secretary of War—JoBN M. ScHoFIELD, of New York.

Secretary of the Navy—GIDEON WELLEs, of Connecticut.

Postmaster General—ALEXANDER W. RANDALL, of Wisconsin.

Attorney General—WILLIAir M. EvARTs, of New York.

MEMBERS OF THE FORTIETH CONGRESS.

Third Session, December 7, 1868–March 3, 1869.

Senate. BENJAMIN F. WADE, of Ohio, President of the Senatc. and Acting Vice President. George C. Gorham, of California, Secretary. Maine—Lot M. Morrill, William Pitt Fessenden. New Hampshire–Aaron H. Cragin, James W. Patterson. Vermont—George F. Edmunds. Justin S. Morrill. Massachusetts—Charles Sumner, Henry Wilson. Rhode Island—William Sprague, Henry B. Anthony. c:*-jam" Dixon, Orris S. Ferry. New York—Edwin D. Morgan, Roscoe Conkling. New Jersey–Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, Alexander G. Cattell Pennsylvania–Charles R. Buckalew, Simon Cameron. Delaware—James A. Bayard, Willard Saulsbury. Maryland—William Pinckney Whyte, George Vickers. North Carolina–John C. Abbott, John Pool. South Carolina—Thomas J. Robertson, Frederick A. Sawyer. Alabama—Willard Warner, George E. Spencer. Louisiana–John S Harris, William P. Kellegg. Ohio–Benjamin F. Wade. John Sherman. Kentucky-Thomas C. McCreery, Garrett Davis. Tennessee—David T. Patterson, Joseph S. Fowler. Indiana—Thomas A. Hendricks, Oliver P. Mor

ton. Illinois—Richard Yates Lyman Trumbull. Missouri—John B. Henderson, Charles D. Drake. A.

Arkansas–Alexander McDonald, Benjamin F
Rice.
Michigan–Zachariah Chandler, Jacob M. How-
ard.
Florida—Adonijah S. Welch, Thomas W. Osborn,
Iowa-James W. Grimes, James Harlan
Wisconsin–James R. Doolittle, Timothy O.
Howe.
California—John Conness, Cornelius Cole.
Minnesota–Alexander Ramsey, Dan'l S. Norton.
Oregon–George H. Williams, Henry W Corbett.
Kansas–Edmund G. Ross, Samuel C Pomeroy.
West Virginia—Peter G. Van Winkle, Waitman
T. Willey.
Nevada—William M. Stewart, James W. Nye.
Nebraska—Thomas W. Tipton, John M. Thayer.

House of Representatives. SCHUYLER Col.FAx, of Indiana, Speaker. Edward McPherson, of Pennsylvania, Clerk, Maine—John Lynch, Sidney Perham, James G. Blaine, John A. Peters, Frederick A. Pike. New Hampshire–Jacob H. Ela, Aaron F. Stevens, Jacob Benton. Vermont–Frederick E. Woodbridge, Luke P. Poland, Worthington C. Smith. Massachusetts –Thomas D. Eliot, Oakes Ames, Ginery Twichell, Samuel Hooper, Benjamin F. Butler, Nathaniel P. Banks, George S. Boutwell, John D. Baldwin, William B. Washburn, Henry L. Dawes. Rhode Island—Thomas A. Jenckes, Nathan F. Dixon. Connecticut—Richard D. Hubbard, Julius Hotchkiss, Henry H. Starkweather, William H. Barnum. New York Stephen Taber, Demas Barnes, William E. Robinson, John Fox, John Morrissey. Thomas E. Stewart, John W. Chanler, James Brooks, Fernando Wood, William H. Robert. son. Charles H. Van Wyck, John H. Ketcham, Thomas Cornell, John V. L. Pruyn, John A. Griswold, Orange Ferriss, Calvin T Hulburd James M. Marvin, William C. Fields, Addison H. Laflin, Alexander H. Balley, John C. Churchill Dennis McCarthy, Theodore M. Pomeroy, William H. Kelsey, William S. Lincoln, Hamilton Ward, Lewis Selye, Burt Van Horn, James M. Humphrey, IIenry Van Aernam.

New Jersey—William Moore, Charles Haight, Charles Sitgreaves, John Hill, George A. Hal.

SeV. *—Samud J. Randall, Charles O'Neill, Leonard Myers, William D. Kelley, Caleb N. Taylor, Benjamin M. Boyer, John M. Broomall, J. Lawrence Getz, O. J. Dickey,” Henry L. Cake, Daniel M. Van Auken, George W. Woodward, Ulvsses Mercur, George F. Miller, Adam J. Glossbrenner, William H. Koontz, Daniel J. Morrell, Stephen F. Wilson, Glenni W. Scofield, S Newton Pettis.f John Covode, James K. Moorhead, Thomas Wil. liams George W. Lawrence. Delaware—John A. Nicholson. Maryland–Hiram McCullough, Stevenson Archer, Charles E. Phelps, Francis Thomas, Frederi, k Stone. North Carolina—John R. French, David Heaton, Oliver II Dockery, John T. Deweese, Israel G Lash, Nathaniel Boyden, Alexander H. Jones. South Carolina–B. F. Whittemore, C. C. Bowen, Simeon Corley, James II. Goss. Georgia—J. W. Clift, Nelson Tift, W. P. Ed. wards, Samuel F. Gove, C.II. Prince, (vacancy.) P M. B. Young. Alabama–Francis W. Kellogg, Charles W Buckley, Benjamin W. Norris, Charles W. Pierce, John B. Callis, Thomas Haughey. Louisiana—J. Hale Sypher, (vacancy.) Joseph P. Newsham, Michel Vidal, W. Jasper Blackburn. Ohio–Benjamin Eggleston, Samuel F. Cary, Robert C. Schenck, William Lawrence, Wii. liam Mungen, Reader W. Clarke, Samuel Shellabarger, John Beatty, Ralph P. Buckland, James M. Ashley, John T. Wilson, Philadelph Van Trump. Columbus Delano, Martin Welker, Tobias A. £ John A Bingham, Ephraim R. Eckley, Rufus P. Spalding, James A. Garfield.

[ocr errors]

Thomas L. Jones, James B. Beck, George M. Adams, Samuel McKee. Tennessee–Roderick R. Butler, Horace Maynard, William B. Stokes, James Mullins John Trimble, Samuel M. Arnell, Isaac R. Hawkins, David A. Nunn. Indiana–William E. Niblack, Michael C. Kerr, Morton C. Hunter, William S. Holman. George W. Julian, John Coburn, Henry D. Washburn, Godlove S. Orth. Schuyler Colfax, William Williams, John P. C Shanks. Illinois–Norman B. Judd, John F. Farnsworth, JEllihu B. Washburne, Abner C. Harding, Ebon C. Ingersoll, Burton C. Cook, Henry P. H. Bromwell, Shelby M. Cullom, Lewis W Boss, Albert G. Burr, Samuel S. Marshall Jehu Baker, Green B. Raum, John A. Logan. Missouri–William A. Pile, Carman A. Newcomb, James R. McCormick, Joseph J. Gravely, John II. Stover,” Robert T. Van Horn, Benjamin : Loan, John F. Benjamin, George W. Anel’son. Arkansas–Logan II. Roots, James T. Elliott, Thomas Boles. Michigan–Fernando C. Beaman, Charles Upson, Austin Blair. Thomas W. Ferry, Rowland E. Trowbridge, John F. Driggs. Florida–Charles M. Hamilton. Iowa–James F. Wilson, Hiram Price, William B. A'ison, William Loughridge, Grenville M. Dodge, Asahel W. Hubbard. Wisconsin–Halbert E. Paine, Benjamin F. Hopkins, Amasa Cobb, Charles A. Eldridge, Philetus Sawyer, Cadwalader C. Washburn. California—Samuel B. Axtell, William Higby, James A. Johnson. £e-William Windom, Ignatius Donnelly. Oregon – Rufus Mallory.

[ocr errors]

West Virginia–Chester D. Hubbard, Bethuel

M. Kitchen, Daniel Polsley. Nevada-Delos R. Ashley. Nebraska–John Taffe.

[blocks in formation]

the timely revocation of injurious and oppressive measures is the greatest good that can be conferred upon a nation. The legislator or ruler who has the wisdom and magnanimity to retrace his steps, when convinced of error, will sooner or later be rewarded with the respect and gratitude of an intelligent and patriotic people. . Our own history, although embracing a period less than a century, affords abundant proof that most, if not all, of our domestic troubles are directly traceable to violations of the organic law and excessive legislation. The most striking illustrations of this fact are furnished by the enactinents of the past three years upon the uestion of reconstruction. After a fair trial they have substantially failed and proved pernicious in their results, and there seeins to be no good reason why they should remain longer upon the statute-book. States to which the Constitu. tion guaranties a republican form of government have been reduced to military dependencies, in each of which the people have been made subject to the arbitrary will of the commanding general. Although the Constitution requires that each State shall be represented in Congress, Virginia, Mississippi, and Texas are yet excluded from the two Houses, and, contrary to the express provisions of that instrument, were denied participation in the recent election for a President and Vice President of the United States The attempt to place the white population under the domination of persons of color in the South has impaired, if not destroyed, the kindly relations that had previously existed be: tween them; and mutual distrust has engendered a feeling of animosity which, leading in some instances to collision and bloodshed, has prevented that cooperation between the two races so essential to the success of industrial enterrises in the Southern States. Nor have the inhabitants of those States alone suffered from the disturbed condition of affairs growing out of these congressional enactments. The entire Union has been agitated by grave apprehensions of troubles which might again £ the peace of the nation; its interests have been injuriously affected by the derangement of business and labor and the consequent want of prosperity throughout that portion of the country. The Federal Constitution—the magna charta of American rights, under whose wise and salu: tary provisions we havo successfully conducted all our domestic and foreign affairs, sustained ourselves in peace and in war, and become a great nation among the Powers of the earth—must assuredly be now adequate to the settlement of questions growing out of the civil war waged alone for its vindication. This great fact is made most manifest by the condition of the country when Congress assembled in the month of 10ccember, 1865. Civil strile had ceased; the spirit of rebellion had spent its entire force; in the Southern States the people had warmed into national life, and throughout the whole country a healthy reaction in public sentiment had taken place By the application of the simple yet effective provisions of the Constitution the executive department, with the voluntary aid of the States, had brought the work of restora

tion as near completion as was within the scope of its authority, and the nation was encouraged by the prospect of an early and satisfactory adjustment of all its difficulties. Congress, however, intervened, and, refusing to perfect the work so nearly consummated, declined to admit members from the unrepresented States, adopted a series of measures which arrested the progress of restoration, frustrated all that had been so successfully accomplished, and after three years of agitation ' strife has left the country further from the attainment of union and fraternal feeling than at the inception of the congressional plan of reconstruction. It needs no argument to show that legislation which has produced such baneful consequences should be abrogated, or else made to conform to the genuine principles of republican government. Under the influence of party passion and sectional prejudice, other acts have been passed not warranted by the Constitution. Congress has already been made familiar with my views ressecting the ' tenure of office bill.” Experience has proved that its repeal is demanded by the best interests of the country, and that while it remains in force the President cannot enjoin that rigid accountability of public officers so essential to an honest and efficient execution of the laws. Its revocation would enable the executive department to exercise the power of appointment and removal in accordance with the original design of the Federal Constitution. The act of March 2, 1867, making appropriations for the support of the army for the year ending June 30, 1868, and for other purposes, contains provisions which interfere with the President's constitutional functions as Commander in Chief of the Army, and deny to States of the Union the right to protect themselves by means of their own militia. These provisions should be at once annulled; for while the first might, in times of great emergency, seriously embarrass the Executive in efforts to employ and direct the common strength of the nation for its protection and preservation, the other is contrary to the express declaration of the Constitution, that, “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It is believed that the repeal of all such laws would be accepted by the American people as at least a partial return to the fundamental principles o: the Government, and an indication that hereafter the Constitution is to be made the nation's safe and unerring guide. They can be productive of no permanent benefit to the country, and should not be permitted to stand as so many monuments of the deficient wisdom which has characterized our recent legislation. The condition of our finances d-mands the early and earnest consideration of Congress.

Compared with the growth of our population, the

public expenditures have reached an amount unprecedented in our history. The population of the United States in 1790 was nearly four millions of people. Increasing each decade about thirty three per cent... it reached in 1860 thirty one millions—an increase of seven hundred per cent on the population in 1790. In 1869 it is estimated that it will reach thirty-eight millions, or an increase of eight hundred and sixty-eight per cent. in seventynine years. The annual expenditures of the Federal Government in 1791 were $4,200,000; in 1820, $18,200,000; in 1850, $41,000 000; in 1860, $63,000 000; in 1865, nearly $1,300,000,000; and in 1869 it is estimated by the Secretary of the Treasury, , in his last annual report, that they will be $372,000,000. By comparing the public disbursements of 1869, as estimated with those of 1791, it will be seen that the increase of expenditure since the beginning of the Government has been eight thousand six hundred and eighteen per cent., while the increase of the population for the same period was only eighteen hundred and sixtyeight per cent. Again: the expenses of the Government in 1860, the year of peace immediately preceding the war, were only $63,000,000; while in 1869, the year of peace three years after the war, it is estimated they will be $372,000,000– an increase of four hundred and eighty-nine per cent, while the increase of population was only twenty one per cent for the same period. These statistics further show, that in 1791 the annual national expenses, compared with the population, were little more than $1 per capita. and in 1860 but $2 per capita; while in 1869 they will reach the extravagant sum of $978 Aper capita. It will be observed that all of these statements refer to and exhibit the disbursements of peace periods. It may, therefore, be of interest to compare the expenditures of the three war pe. riods—the war with Great Britain, the Mexican war, and the war of the rebellion. In 1814 the annual expenses incident to the war of 1812 reached their highest amount— about thirty-one millions; while our population slightly exceeded eight millions, showing an expenditure of only $3.80 per capita. In 1847 the expenditures growing out of the war with Mexico reached $55,000,000, and the population about twenty one millions, giving only $260 per capita for the war expenses of that year. In 1865 the expenditures called for by the rebellion reached the vast amount of $1,290,000,000, which, compared with a population of thirtyfour millions, gives $38.20 per capita. From the 4th day of March, 1789, to the 30th of June, 1861, the entire expenditures of the Government were $1,700 000,000. During that period we were engaged in wars with Great Bri. tain and Mexico, and were involved in hostilities with powerfui Indian tribes; Louisiana was urchased from France at a cost of $15,000,000; 'lorida was ceded to us by Spain for $500000; California was acquired from Mexico for $15, 000000; and the Territory of New Mexico was obtained from Texas f r the sum of $10,000,000 Early in 1861 the war of the rebellion commenced; and from the 1st of July of that year to the 30th of June, 1865, the public expenditures reached the enortuous aggregate of $3,300,000 000. Three years of peace have intervened, and during that time the disbursements of the Government have successively been $520,000 000, $346,000,000, and $393,000,000. Adding to these amounts

$372,000,000, estimated as necessary for the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1869, we obtain a total expenditure of $1,600,000,000 during the lour years immediately succeeding the war, or nearly as much as was expended during the seventy two years that preceded the rebellion, and embraced the extraordinary expenditures already named. These startling facts clearly illustrate the necessity of retrenchment in all branches of the public service. Abuses which were tolerated durin the war for the preservation of the nation wil not be endured by the people, now that profound peace prevails. The receipts from internal revenues and customs have during the past three years gradually diminished, and the continuance of useless and extravagant expenditures will involve us in national bankruptcy, or else make inevitable an increase of taxes, already too onerous, and in many respects obnoxious on account of their inquisitorial character. One hundred millions annually are expended for the military force, a large portion of which is employed in the execution of laws both unnecessary and unconstitutional; $150,000,000 are required each year to pay the interest on the public debt; an army of tax gatherers impoverishes the nation; and public agents, placed by Congress beyond the control of the Executive, divert from their legitimate purposes large sums of money which they collect from the people in the name of the Government. Judicious legislation and prudent economy can alone remedy defects and avert evils which, if suffered to exist, cannot fail to diminish confidence in the public councils, and weaken the attachment and respect of the people toward their political institutions. . Without proper care the small balance which it is estimated will remain in the Treasury at the close of the present fiscal year will not be realized, and additional millions be added to a debt which is now enumerated by billions. It is shown by the able and comprehensive report of the Secretary of the Treasury that the receipts for the fiscal year ending June 30 1868, were $405,638,083, and that the expenditures for the same period were $377,340 284, leaving in the Treasury a surplus of $28,297,798. It is estimated that the receipts during the present fiscal year ending June 30, 1869, will be $341,392,868, and the expenditures $336,152,470, showing a small balance of $5,240,398 in favor of the Gov. ernment. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1870, it is estimated that the receipts will amount to $327,000,000, and the expenditures to $303,000000, leaving an estimated surplus of $24,000,000. It becomes proper, in this connection, to make a brief reference to our public indebtedness, which has accumulated with such alarming rapidity and assumed such colossal proportions. In 1789, when the Government commenced operations under the Federal Constitution, it was burdened with an indebtedness of $75,000,000 created during the war of the Revolution. This amount had been reduced to $45,000,000 when, in 1812, war was declared against Great Britain. The three years' struggle that followed largely increased the national obligations, and in 1816 they had attained the sum of $127,000,000. Wise

« AnteriorContinuar »