Thirty Years' View (Vol. II of 2)

The member from Tennessee was entirely right in his desire for a naval peace establishment, but the principle on which such an establishment should be formed, was nowhere developed. It was generally treated as a naval question, dependent upon the number of naval marine – others a commercial question, dependent upon our amount of commerce; while, in fact, it is a political question, dependent upon the state of the world. Protection of commerce is the reason always alleged: that reason, pursued into its constituent parts, would always involve two inquiries, and both of them to be answered in reference to the amount of commerce, and its dangers in any sea. To measure the amount of a naval peace establishment, and its distribution in different seas, the amount of danger must be considered: and that is constantly varying with the changing state of the world. The great seat of danger was formerly in the Mediterranean Sea; and squadrons proportioned to the amount of that danger were sent there: since the extirpation of the piratical powers on the coast of the sea, there is no danger to commerce there, and no need for any protection; yet larger squadrons are sent there than ever. Formerly there was piracy in the West Indies, and protection was needed there: now there is no piracy, and no protection needed, and yet a home squadron must watch those islands. So of other places. There is no danger in many places now in which there was much formerly; and where we have most commerce there is no danger at all. This protection, the object of a naval peace establishment, is only required against lawless or barbarian powers: such powers require the presence of some ships of war to restrain their piratical disposition. The great powers which recognize the laws of nations, need no such negotiators as men-of-war. They do not commit depredations to be redressed by a broadside into a town: if they do injury to commerce it is either accidental, or in pursuance to some supposed right: and in either case friendly ministers are to negotiate, and the political power to resolve, before cannon are fired. Here then is the measure of a peace establishment: it is in the number and power of the barbarian or half-barbarian powers which are not amenable to the laws of nations, and whose lawless propensities can only be restrained by the fear of immediate punishment. There are but few of these powers at present – much fewer than there were fifty years ago, and can only be found by going to the extremities of the globe – and are of no force when found, and can be kept in perfect order by cruisers. As for the squadrons kept up in the Mediterranean, the Pacific coast, Brazil, and East Indies, they are there without a reason, and against all reason – have nothing to do but stay abroad three years, and then come home – to be replaced by another for another three years: and so on, until there shall be reform. Better far, if all these squadrons are to be kept up, that they should remain at home, spending their money at home instead of abroad, and just as serviceable to commerce. As for the home squadron, that was established by law, without reason, and should be suppressed without delay: and as for the African squadron, that was established by treaty to please Great Britain, and ought, in the first place, not to have been established at all; and in the second place, should have been suppressed as soon as the five years' obligation to keep it up had expired.

Mr. Hamlin, of Maine, spoke to the body of the case, and with knowledge of the subject, and a friendly feeling to the navy – but not such feeling as could wink at its abuses. He said:

"He trusted he was the very last person who would detract from the well-merited fame of the navy; but he had another rule of action: he would endeavor so to vote in relation to this subject, as to check, if possible, what he believed the gross and extravagant expenditure of public money: and he referred gentlemen, in corroboration of this assertion that there was extravagance in the expenditures, to the report of the Committee on Naval Affairs. The facts which stared them in the face from every quarter justified him in the assertion that there was gross extravagance. Mr. H. referred to various items of expenditure, in proof of the existence of extravagance."

'Mr. Hamlin pointed to the enormous increase in the number of officers in the navy, constantly augmenting in a time of peace, instead of being diminished as the public good required:

"He produced tables, taken from official returns, to show that the greater number of these officers were necessarily unemployed, and were spending their time at home in idleness. He had nothing to urge against any officer of the navy; they could not be blamed for receiving the allowance which the law gave them, whether employed or not; – but he asked gentlemen to examine the great disparity between the number of naval officers, as regulated by statute, and the number now in existence."

This was said before the naval school was created: since the establishment of that school, enough are legally appointed to officer a great navy. Two hundred and fifty midshipmen constantly there, coming off by annual deliveries, and demanding more ships and commissions than the public service and the public Treasury can bear. Illegal appointments have ceased, but the evil of excessive appointments is greater than ever.

Mr. Hamlin produced some items of extravagance, one of which he summed up, showing as the result that $2,142 97 was expended at one hospital in liquors for the "sick," and $10,288 53 for provisions: and then went on to say:

"The amount expended within a period of one year on the coast of Florida by the commander of this little squadron, was five hundred and four thousand five hundred and eighty dollars; and yet the gentleman from South Carolina found in this nothing to induce the House to restrict the appropriations. Mr. H. said he would go for the amendment. He would go for any thing to stop the drafts these leeches were making on the Treasury. His principal object, however, in rising, was to call on the members to redeem the pledges of economy that they made at the beginning of the session, and he trusted that now that they had the opportunity they would redeem them. He was from a commercial State, and would be the last man to do any act that would be injurious to commerce; but he did not understand how commerce could be benefited or protected by suffering this enormous and profligate waste of public money to be continued. By introducing a proper system of economy and accountability, the navy would be more efficient, and the government would be able to employ more ships and more guns to protect commerce than they now did."

Mr. Hale replied to several members, and went on to speak of abuses in the navy expenditures, and the irresponsibility of officers:

"There was an old maxim in the navy, that there was no law for a post-captain, and really the adage seemed now to be verified. The navy (said Mr. H.) is utterly without law, and the document just read by the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Hamlin] showing the expenditures of the Florida squadron, proved it. Such conduct as was described in that document ought to make every American blush; but what was the result of it? Why, the officer came forward and demanded of the Secretary of the Navy (Mr. Henshaw) extra compensation as commander of a foreign squadron, and the Secretary paid him from five to seven thousand dollars more. It was to correct a thousand such abuses as this, that had crept into the navy, that he would offer the amendment which had been read for the information of the committee. Mr. H. went on to comment on the large amount of money unnecessarily expended for the navy. We have, said he, twice as many officers as there is any use for, and they receive higher pay than the officers of any navy in the world."

Mr. Hale believed we had too many navy-yards, and mentioned the condition of the one nearest his own home, as an exemplification of his opinion, Portsmouth, New Hampshire —

"Where were stationed twenty-six officers, at an expense of $30,000 a year, and all to command six seamen and twelve ordinary seamen. This yard was commanded by a post-captain; and what duties had he to perform? Why, just nothing. What had the commander to do? Why, to help the captain; and as for the lieutenants, they had nothing to do but to give orders to the midshipmen."

The movement ended without results, and so of all desultory efforts at reform at any time. Abuses in the expenditure of public money are not of a nature to surrender at the first summons, nor to yield to any thing but persevering and powerful efforts. A solitary member, or a few members, can rarely accomplish any thing. The ready and efficient remedy lies with the administration, but for that purpose a Jefferson is wanted at the head of the government – a man not merely of the right principles, but of administrative talent, to know how to apply his economical doctrines. Such a President would now find a great field for economy and retrenchment in reducing our present expenditures about the one-half – from seventy odd millions to thirty odd. Next after an administration should come some high-spirited and persevering young men, who would lay hold, each of some great abuse, and pursue it without truce or mercy – year in, and year out – until it was extirpated. Some such may arise – one to take hold of the navy, one of the army, one of the civil and diplomatic – and gain honor for themselves and good for their country at the same time.

CHAPTER CXXII.

CHINESE MISSION: MR. CUSHING'S APPOINTMENT AND NEGOTIATION

Ten days before the end of the session 1842-'3, there was taken up in the House of Representatives a bill reported from the Committee of Foreign Relations, to provide the means of opening future intercourse between the United States and China. The bill was unusually worded, and gave rise to criticism and objection. It ran thus:

"That the sum of forty thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated and placed at the disposal of the President of the United States, to enable him to establish the future commercial relations between the United States and the Chinese Empire on terms of national equal reciprocity; the said sum to be accounted for by the President, under the restrictions and in the manner prescribed by the act of first of July, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, entitled 'An act providing the means of intercourse between the United States and foreign nations.'"

This bill was unusual, and objectionable in all its features. It appropriated a gross sum to be disposed of for its object as the President pleased, being the first instance in a public act of a departure from the rule of specific appropriations which Mr. Jefferson introduced as one of the great reforms of the republican or democratic party. It withdrew the settlement of the expenditure of this money from the Treasury officers, governed by law, to the President himself, governed by his discretion. It was copied from the act of July 1st, 1790, but under circumstances wholly dissimilar, and in violation of the rule which condemned gross, and required specific, appropriations. That act was made in the infancy of our government, and when preliminary, informal, and private steps were necessary to be taken before public negotiations could be ventured. It was under that act that Mr. Gouverneur Morris was privately authorized by President Washington to have the unofficial interviews with the British ministry which opened the way for the public mission which ended in the commercial treaty of 1794. Private advances were necessary with several powers, in order to avoid rebuff in a public refusal to treat with us. Great latitude of discretion was, therefore, entrusted to the President; and that President was Washington. A gross sum was put into his hands, to be disposed of as he should deem proper for its object, that of intercourse between the United States and foreign nations, and to account for such part of the expenditure of the sum as, in his judgment, might be made public, and he was limited in the sums he might allow to $9,000 outfit, and $9,000 salary to a full minister – to $4,500 per annum to a chargé de affaires – and to $1,350 to a secretary of legation. This bill for the Chinese mission was framed upon that early act of 1790, and even adopted its mode of accounting for the money by leaving it to the President to suppress the items of the expenditure, when he should judge it proper. The bill was loose and latitudinous enough to shock the democratic side of the House; but not enough so to satisfy its friends; and accordingly the first movement was to enlarge the President's discretion, by striking from the bill the word "restrictions" which applied to his application of the money. Mr. Adams made the motion, and as he informed the House in the course of the discussion, at the instance and according to the wish of the Secretary of State (Mr. Webster). This motion gave rise to much objection. Mr. Meriwether, a member of the committee which had reported the bill, spoke first; and said:

"He opposed the amendment. If he understood its effect, it would be to leave the mission without any restriction. The bill, as it came from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, placed this mission on the same footing as other missions. The Secretary of State, however, wished the whole sum placed at his own disposal and control – wished it left to him to pay as much as he pleased. He (Mr. M.) did not consider this mission to China as a matter of so much importance as had been claimed for it. He thought it would be difficult to persuade the people of that country to change their polity, give up their aversion to foreigners, and enter into commercial intercourse with other nations. He wished, at any rate, to have this mission placed on the same footing as other missions. He knew not how the whole of this sum of $40,000 was to be expended, although he was a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Our ministers generally receive $9,000 a year salary, and $9,000 outfit. Now, if the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Adams] should be adopted, it would be in the power of the President to pay the minister who might be sent to China $20,000 outfit, and $20,000 more salary. The minister would be subject to no expense, would go out in a national vessel, and would not be compelled to land until it suited his pleasure. Why make a difference in the case of China? Was that mission of greater importance than the French? Look at Turkey – a semi-barbarous country – where our minister received $6,000 a year. He thought if $6,000 was enough for the services of Commodore Porter at Constantinople, that sum would be sufficient for any minister that might be sent out to China. When the amendment now before the committee should have been disposed of, he should move to place the mission to China upon the same footing with that to Turkey."

In these remarks Mr. Meriwether shows it was the sense of the committee to make the appropriation in the usual specific form, leaving the accountability to the usual Treasury settlement; but that the bill was changed to its present shape at the instance of the Secretary of State. Some members placed their objections on the ground of no confidence in the administration that was to expend the money: thus, Mr. J. C. Clark, of New York:

"In the British Parliament, it is a legitimate ground of objection to a supply bill, that the objector has no confidence in the ministry. This bill proposes to vest in the President and Secretary of State a large discretion in the expenditure of forty thousand dollars; and I agree with my friend from Georgia [Mr. Meriwether], that there is good reason to doubt the propriety of giving to these men the disbursement of any money not imperiously called for by the exigencies of the public service. I place my opposition to this bill solely on the ground of an utter want of confidence in the political integrity of the President and some of his official advisers."

Mr. Adams replied to these objections:

"He did not think it necessary to waste the time of the House in arguing the propriety of a mission to China. The message of the President was sufficient on that point.

"He then replied to the objections urged against the bill, on the ground that it placed too much confidence in the President, and that the appropriation was to be made without restriction. The motion which he had submitted, to strike out the restrictions of law, which were applicable to other diplomatic appropriations, was made after a consultation with the Secretary of State, who thought that to impose restrictions might embarrass the progress of the negotiations."

Mr. McKeon, of New York, opposed the whole scheme of the mission to China, believing it to be unnecessary, and to be conducted with too much pomp and expense, and to lay the foundation for a permanent mission. He said:

"There was nothing so very peculiar in the case of China, that Congress should depart from the usual restrictions of law, which applied to diplomatic appropriations generally. He thought it would be better to take the matter quietly, and go about it in a quiet business manner. Should the bill pass as reported by the committee, it would authorize a minister at a salary of $9,000 and $9,000 outfit. Pass it according to the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Adams], and $40,000 would thereby be placed at the disposal of the Executive – more than he (Mr. McK.) was willing to see placed in the hands of any President. He should be as liberal as any man in fixing the salaries of the minister and secretary. But the appropriation was only a beginning. The largest ship in this country (the Pennsylvania) would no doubt be selected to carry out whomsoever should be selected as minister, in order to give as much eclat as possible to our country. Then other vessels would have to be sent to accompany this ship, and to sail where her size would not allow her to go. These, and other paraphernalia, would have to be provided for the minister; and this $40,000 would be but a beginning of the expense. He concluded by expressing the hope that the motion to strike out the restrictions contained in the bill, and thereby place the whole appropriation at the disposal of the President, would not prevail."

Mr. Bronson, of Maine, expressed it as his conviction, that we should possess more information before such a measure as that of sending a minister plenipotentiary to China should be adopted. He should prefer having a commercial agent for the present. The question was then taken on Mr. Adams's proposed amendment, and resulted in its adoption – 80 votes for it; 55 against it. The previous question being called, the bill was then passed without further debate or amendment – yeas 96: nays 59. The nays were:

"Messrs. – Thomas D. Arnold, Archibald H. Arrington, Charles G. Atherton, Benjamin A. Bidlack, John M. Botts, David Bronson, Milton Brown, Charles Brown, Edmund Burke, William O. Butler, Patrick C. Caldwell, William B. Campbell, Zadock Casey, John C. Clark, Nathan Clifford, Walter Coles, Benjamin S. Cowen, James H. Cravens, George W. Crawford, Garrett Davis, Andrew W. Doig, William P. Fessenden, Charles A. Floyd, A. Lawrence Foster, Roger L. Gamble, James Gerry, William L. Goggin, William O. Goode, Willis Green, William A. Harris, John Hastings, Samuel L. Hays, Jacob Houck, jr., Robert M. T. Hunter, John W. Jones, George M. Keim, Nathaniel S. Littlefield, Abraham McClellan, James J. McKay, John McKeon, Albert G. Marchand, Alfred Marshall, John Maynard, James A. Meriwether, John Moore, Bryan Y. Owsley, Kenneth Rayner, John R. Reding, John Reynolds, R. Barnwell Rhett, James Rogers, William Smith, John Snyder, James C. Sprigg, Edward Stanley, Lewis Steenrod, Charles C. Stratton, John T. Stuart, Samuel W. Trotti."

It was observed that Mr. Cushing, though a member of the committee which reported the bill, and a close friend to the administration, took no part in the proceedings upon this bill – neither speaking nor voting for or against it: a circumstance which strengthened the belief that he was to be the beneficiary of it.

It was midnight on the last day of the session when the bill was called up in the Senate. Mr. Wright of New York, desired to know the reason for so large an appropriation in this case. He was answered by Mr. Archer, the senatorial reporter of the bill, who said it was not intended that the salary of the minister, or agent, together with his outfit, should exceed $18,000 per annum – the amount usually appropriated for such missions. Supposing the mission to occupy two years, and the sum is not too much, and the remoteness of the country to be negotiated with, justifies the full appropriation in advance. Mr. Wright replied that the explanation was not at all satisfactory to him: the compensation to an agent in China could be voted annually, and applied annually, as conveniently as any other. Mr. Benton objected to any mission at all, and especially to such a one as the bill provided for. He argued that —

"There was no necessity for a treaty with China, was proved by the fact that our trade with that country had been going on well without one for a century or two, and was now growing and increasing constantly. It was a trade conducted on the simple and elementary principle of 'here is one,' and 'there is the other' – all ready-money, and hard money, or good products – no credit system, no paper money. For a long time this trade took nothing but silver dollars. At present it is taking some other articles, and especially a goodly quantity of Missouri lead. This has taken place without a treaty, and without an agent at $40,000 expense. All things are going on well between us and the Chinese. Our relations are purely commercial, conducted on the simplest principles of trade, and unconnected with political views. China has no political connection with us. She is not within the system, or circle, of American policy. She can have no designs upon us, or views in relation to us; and we have no need of a minister to watch and observe her conduct. Politically and commercially the mission is useless. By the Constitution, all the ministers are to be appointed by the Senate; but this minister to China is to be called an agent, and sent out by the President without the consent of the Senate; and thus, by imposing a false name upon the minister, defraud the Senate of their control over the appointment. The enormity of the sum shows that the mission is to be more expensive than any one ever sent from the United States; and that it is to be one of the first grade, or of a higher grade than any known in our country. Nine thousand dollars per annum, and the same for an outfit, is the highest compensation known to our service; yet this $40,000 mission may double that amount, and still the minister be only called an agent, for the purpose of cheating the Senate out of its control over the appointment. The bill is fraudulent in relation to the compensation to be given to this ambassadorial agent. No sum is fixed, but he is to take what he pleases for himself and his suite. He and they are to help themselves; and, from the amount allowed, they may help themselves liberally. In all other cases, salaries and compensations are fixed by law, and graduated by time; here there is no limit of either money or time. This mission goes by the job – $40,000 for the job – without regard to time or cost. A summer's work, or a year's work, it is all the same thing: it is a job, and is evidently intended to enable a gentleman, who loves to travel in Europe and Asia, to extend his travels to the Celestial Empire at the expense of the United States, and to write a book. The settlement of the accounts is a fraud upon the Treasury. In all cases of foreign missions, except where secret services are to be performed, and spies and informers to be dealt with, the accounts are settled at the Treasury Department, by the proper accounting officers; when secret services are to be covered, the fund out of which they are paid is then called the contingent foreign intercourse fund; and are settled at the State Department, upon a simple certificate from the President, that the money has been applied according to its intention. It was in this way that the notorious John Henry obtained his $50,000 during the late war; and that various other sums have been paid out to secret agents at different times. To this I do not object. Every government, in its foreign intercourse, must have recourse to agents, and have the benefit of some services, which would be defeated if made public; and which must, therefore, be veiled in secrecy, and paid for privately. This must happen in all governments; but not so in this case of the Chinese mission. Here, secrecy is intended for what our own minister, his secretary, and his whole suite, are to receive. Not only what they may give in bribes to Chinese, but what they may take in pay to themselves, is to be a secret. All is secret and irresponsible! And it will not do to assimilate this mission to the oldest government in the world, to the anomalous and anonymous missions to revolutionary countries. Such an analogy has been attempted in defence of this mission, and South American examples cited; but the cases are not analogous. Informal agencies, with secret objects, are proper to revolutionary governments; but here is to be a public mission, and an imposing one – the grandest ever sent out from the United States. – To attempt to assimilate such a mission to a John Henry case, or to a South American agency, is absurd and impudent; and is a fraud upon the system of accountability to which all our missions are subjected.