fill the clerkships. They will crowd out those individuals who would be glad to do the work at lower rates; and after they have held those offices ten years, they will petition, if they think that we will listen to their petitions. They will tell us that house rent is high; that they are bound to entertain their friends when they come here; that it cost a great deal to keep up carriages, and rent pews in fashionable churches, and that they must have an increase to $10,000 per year.

There is not a man in the country who is making money as fast as he wants to, and there is not a man holding office who gets as much as he would like to get; and if you will ask him whether he ought to have an advance, he will answer, "Yes, I can turn this money to a good account."

Gentlemen talk to me about liberality. I can very well understand the liberality of the man who puts his hand into his own pocket and pays out his own money. I do not call it liberality to misuse the money of other people, and give it away to favorites. This money is raised by taxation. It is taken from an unwilling, reluctant community. They are willing to pay as much as we need, and nothing more. And I do not feel that I can, with any sort of propriety, insist on taxing my constituents, the majority of whom cannot make one dollar per day, to enable others to get a much larger sum, when we can secure the services for less.

I want to present these considerations to the House. I intend, at some time during this session, if I get the opportunity on one of the appropriation bills, to say something about the character of the public expenditures of the country. They vastly exceed those of any other country in the world. You may go to London, Paris, or anywhere else, and you will not find the public expenditures there like the amount paid for the same service here. I know that the rate of wages is higher in the United States, but it is no reason why we should pay ten times as much for the same service as others do, when we can get it for the half only.

This is a thankless duty which I am discharging, sir. We are surrounded by a constant pressure. It is a very popular thing to be generous, and vote the people's money out of the Treasury. If that money came into the Treasury just as the water comes into the Potomac, I' should be glad to hand it about to everybody around us; but when I remember that it comes there by taxation upon the people, I do not feel at liberty to vote it away unnecessarily.

Sir, this government of the United States is rapidly becoming the most extravagant in the world; in fact, it is the most extravagant for its service, and it will soon become the most profligate and wasteful, for it is the nature of all vices growing out of expenditures to increase rapidly. Everybody knows that the decay of the Roman Republic arose from the fact, that in its latter days the public men gave away the money, lands, and other public property for votes to make themselves popular, and to be elected consuls and pro-consuls; but they were in the habit of giving it to the soldiers, and there was, therefore, some excuse for it; they said these men had defended the country. We, however, are making ourselves popular by voting money and lands to men engaged in the civil service, or who have performed no service at all. The result is that things are moving on at railroad speed. We are constantly increasing

our expenditures with less service. It is a notorious fact that we do not get better service now, in the Departments, than we got twenty or thirty years ago, when we did not spend one half as much. I beg gentlemen to look at this matter. If you will put down these expenses to the lowest rate that will pay and secure competent men, that is all they have a right to expect you to do. When you have done that, you will not have this great pressure for office; you will not have the whole country seeking office, and this perpetual struggle in politics. You will get the work well done, and remember, too, that by tempting these men to quit their usual business, and come on here to seek office, you do them a great deal more mischief than good.

I have made these remarks, Mr. Speaker, merely to indicate the grounds of my opposition to this bill. I should like to gratify these clerks, and pages, and others, by voting them money; but I do not feel that I can do it with justice to my constituents. I would much rather avoid making this opposition. I would much rather that some other gentleman should come out and present the points of objection to these measI think this bill ought to be referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and be discussed there, as all money bills should be discussed. If its principles will stand discussion, then let it pass, and I will acquiesce in it. I do not believe they will stand discussion. I do not believe there is a congressional district in the Union where these expenditures, which we are making all from good feeling, and to gratify persons around us, would be justified by the people; because it can be shown that you do not benefit the donees at all, taking them as a class; you may benefit an individual here and there, but you do more mischief than good to them as a class. I hope this matter will be well understood by the people, and that each gentlemen who votes for the bill may have to justify his vote before the people. If so, I do not think the next Congress will press through such a bill as this without discussion, and under the gag of the previous question, as they are determined to do this, if they can. I consider myself fortunate in getting this opportunity to put in a few words; and I promise that this shall not be the last that gentlemen are to hear from me on this question: for I mean that the country shall understand it fully.

I now, in accordance with my agreement with the gentleman from Tennessee, demand the previous question. I hope that the motion to reconsider will prevail, and that the bill will be referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, there to be considered upon its merits.

NOTE.

Many persons do not know how much they are taxed on account of the expenditures of the Federal Government. The amount now collected by reason of the tariff, or indirect taxes, is about sixty millions. of dollars per year. If this sum be divided by two hundred and thirtyfour, the number of congressional districts, it gives as the share paid by each districts, two hundred and fifty-six thousand dollars. North Caro lina has eight districts and a fraction over. She therefore pays, as a

State, of this tax, upwards of two millions annually. There were, however, some ninety thousand votes given at the last State election. It is therefore true, that the share of each voter in the State, upon an average, is twenty-two dollars a piece. This is not an unfair mode of stating the case, because the women and children, in fact, contribute little to the payment of the taxes. Such a county as Rutherford or Wilkes, therefore, pays about $40,000 in each year. The actual loss is. in fact, much more to the people; for this sum of $60,000,000 which the Government gets is, in the first place, paid by the importing merchants, and they charge a profit on the duty paid, as well as on the original cost of the goods, when they sell to the wholesale dealer; and he, likewise, puts on a large profit when he sells to the retail merchant; and this retail mer chant usually adds not less than fifty per cent. when he sells to the consumer. It is probable, therefore, that the people of the county pay, in truth, twice as much as I have stated, in addition, too, to the very large sum paid by way of protection to the home manufacturer, which, on many classes of articles, exceeds greatly what the Government collects itself.

If this sum seems very large, it must be remembered that from one fourth to a third of all the money paid to merchants, and for articles brought from abroad, is to be charged to this tariff system. Many men pay hundreds of dollars per year in this way, when thier purchases are large without being aware of the extent to which they are taxed. It is probable that the people of North Carolina pay in this way to the General Government nearly ten times as much as they pay to support their State government.

If this money were collected as direct taxes are, by the sheriffs, it would be complained of in many instances, and members of Congress would perhaps be censured when they were found wasting money on their favorites, in cases where it was not called for by the public interest, but was wastefully and mischievously spent.

While I am willing to vote all the money that the public service requires, I am opposed to donations and largesses to favorites. My policy has been to reduce, if possible, the expenses of the Government, so that we may diminish the taxes on the people. I wish to reduce the tariff generally, if possible; but if this cannot be done, at least to repeal the duties on railroad iron, so as to enable the country to make improvements, and thus put the farmers and all others on a better footing, so that they can pay the taxes with less difficulty. Salt, sugar probably, and other necessaries, have strong claims to be released from duties. If these subjects were properly understood by the people of the country, they would, in my opinion, compel ther members of Congress and Sen ators to lop off wasteful expenditures, and reduce the taxes.

[The following speech is presented, because some of the then belligerents are engaged in a war on the same theatre, and on grounds not materially different from those on which the former war was waged. And also because we have ourselves had since then a large experience of the effect of great expenditures of money for war purposes, and are, therefore, in a condition to judge all the better of the effect of such expenditures on the interests of humanity.]

SPEECH

IN FAVOR OF A PROPOSITION FOR MEDIATION IN THE EASTERN WAR, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 3, 1855.

The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. CLINGMAN said:

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask the attention of the committee, not to the subject upon which my friend from South Carolina (Mr. Keitt) has so eloquently addressed the committee, for I should not like to attempt to glean a field which he has reaped so carefully, but to another question which has some intrinsic merits, and which I hope to be able to present in the interval that will elapse prior to the usual time of adjournment.

It will be recollected that, at an early day of this session, I offered a proposition, suggesting the propriety of this government offering its mediation to the belligerent Powers of Europe. The following is the proposition, as modified by me:

A Joint Resolution requesting the President to tender the mediation of the United States to the Powers engaged in the Eastern war.

Whereas, the people of the United States see, with regret, that several of the great Powers of Europe are engaged in a war which threatens to be of long duration, and disastrous in its consequences to the industrial and social interests of a large portion of the civilized world; and being, under the favor of Providence, in the full enjoyment of the blessings of peace, distant from the theater of conflict, disconnected with the causes of quarrel between the parties belligerent, and, as a nation, having no immediate interest in the contest, and no purpose to interfere, forcibly or in an unwelcome manner, nevertheless are of opinion that the controversy may be susceptible of pacific adjustment, through the intervention of a neutral and friendly Power;

therefore

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That we would view with satisfaction a tender to the belligerents of the mediation of the United States, provided it should be in accordance with the President's views of the public interests.

My object at that time was simply to get the subject before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which I am known to be a member, leaving it to the discretion of that committee to act upon it as to them

might seem best. Since then, there has been a great deal of comment upon that subject by the press generally. The proposition has been assailed in some quarters, and defended with ability in others. The course of remark has been such, that I desire to make a short expla nation of my views in relation to this subject, and of the reasons which governed me in making the movement.

I do not propose to speak as a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs now, because I have not the right, under the rules of the House, to refer to anything which occurs in the committee until it shall think proper to make a report to the House. I desire only to meet some of the objections which doubtless induced gentlemen to vote against the proposition at the time when it was first moved.

It is said, in the first place, by objectors, to be an intervention on our part with the affairs of foreign governments. If it be intervention, it is precisely such intervention as this government has practiced from its foundation. Every minister sent abroad is sent to influence the action of some foreign government, and to induce it so to regulate its action as to benefit, and not injure us. In point of fact, we have ourselves had several instances of mediation submitted to us, which we have accepted, thereby admitting that it was not such intervention as gentlemen would now exclude us from offering to foreign governments. Our ministers are instructed to interfere with the action of foreign governments, so far as it may affect us, and no further; and hence they are not expected to look to the internal action of any government, but merely to its external relations, because in these latter we ourselves have an interest. For example, if the Emperor of Russia should deprive us of the trade of the ports of the Black Sea, or Baltic, our minister, Mr. Seymour, would be instructed to remonstrate against it. If that interruption should arise from a conflict between Russia and some other Power, why then we might appeal to both of the belligerent parties. In this particular instance, our trade is interrupted in those seas by the existing war, and our government has a right to relieve us from such an injury, if it is practicable for it to do so.

A gentleman over the way said, the other day, when I first brought up this proposition, that he hoped that the war between Russia and the allied Powers would continue for fifty years. I take it for granted that he did not express this benevolent wish [a laugh] from any opinion that it was advantageous to the parties engaged in it; but he must have made the remark to carry the impression that the United States would derive some advantage from it. It will be conceded, on all hands, that it will give us no glory and no additional territory. If we are to be benefited, therefore, it must be in a pecuniary point of view, either by increasing our exports, that is to say, enhancing the value of what we have to sell, or diminishing the price of what we have to import or purchase.

Let us examine this matter briefly, at the outset of the argument, first with reference to what we have to sell.

Our principle article of export is cotton; and now, in the face of two short crops, it is down to less than eight cents. My own opinion is, and I say it with deference to the opinions of other gentlemen, that