The following is a statement of the imports of a few leading articles of general merchandise at New York, from foreign ports for four years: ARTICLES. Books. Buttons.. Cheese... 188,841 218,489 The following statistics of Congregationalism, in the United States and British colonies, were reported in the Congregational Quarterly, for January, 1869: STATES. 233,018 571,470 669,262 369,195 Alabama... California... 853,583 965,259 656,717 955,091 1,261,918 493,350 860,542 553,293 567,699 12,834,069 12,808,788 14,433,119 15,925,976 5,825,084 157,113 76,865 113.521 1,130,236 2,148,619 2,230,305 1,820,819 2,794,445 2,600,378 2,251,629 2,525,090 531,110 1,090,674 944,289 947,306 1,183,421 1,681,844 2,400,349 1,902,691 947,069 441,071 487,979 834,596 2,738,810 4,735,340 4,493,680 4,034,447 5,470,001 7,745,216 9,132,298 8,052,681 166,949 730,123 350,512 452,081 66,020 88,572 50,515 98,196 279,627 665,309 54,144 43,382 1,134,393 2,200,949 2,436,417 2,558,712 385,788 501,704 879,733 1,024,128 1,558,334 1,492,533 2,149,685 4,094,569 160,078 606,948 634,467 350,443 1,232,939 2,485,840 2,217,311 2,286,218 226,985 452,792 175,322 338,146 1,624,755 2,949,449 8,248,602 3,382,146 4,913,623 6,823,145 5,794,094 6,023,759 163,614 611,436 206,146 187,511 3,299,425 3,616,165 3,939,006 5,090,436 816,146 1,398,925 1,354,432 1,403,510 282,761 403,656 429,055 109,083 165,565 79,451 113.236 22,036,373 21,581,117 18,845,192 26,969,044 7,089,714 8,085,899 10,507,346 10,683.755 1,996,478 2,387,765 1,990,369 1,904,272 1,151,635 8,330,959 2,468,466 2,303,160 5,347,512 5,780,124 3,421,784 2,005,403 Colorado... Connecticut Dakota... District of Columbia Georgia Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Louisiana Missouri Maine. Maryland.... Massachusetts Michigan. Minnesota Nebraska.. New Hampshire 422,942 New Jersey.. New York.. North Carolina *. Ohio Oregon 4,797 5,089 270 350 The number of churches not supplied with ministers was six hundred and fifty-three in the United States, and six hundred and ninety in all America. II. ENGLAND.-The Congregational Yearbook for 1869 reports the following statistics of Congregationalism in Great Britain and the British dependencies: County Ass'ns and Unions. Churches. Ministers and Missionaries. 42 16 2,003 866 1,915 393 26811 COUNTRIES. England Wales.. :: Foreign lands (incl. of native ordained missionaries foreign lands).... in *Three churches, but no ministers or members reported. 1. Western College, Plymouth.... 2. Rotherham Independent College. 3. Cheshunt College.. 4. Airdale College..... 5. Hackney Theological Seminary. 6. Lancashire Independent College.. 8. New College, London... 7. Spring Hill College, Moseley, Birmingham. 9. Theological Hall of Congregational Churches of Scotland. 10. Brecon Independent College.. 11. Independent College, Bala. 12. Congregational Institute, Bristol.. 13. Congregational Institute, Nottingham.. 14. Congregational College of British North America, Montreal.. Date. 1752 1756 1768 1800 1803 1806 1838 1850 1811 1842 1863 1863 1863 The following table gives the list of Congre- church-membership." A general assembly of gational colleges in the British possessions, the pastors and delegates of the associated with the date of foundation: churches is held every two years. The last meeting of the synod was held at Bergerac, in September, 1868. The next will take place in Mazamet, October, 1870. At the Synod of Bergerac, 47 churches reported a membership of 2,735, averaging upward of sixty to each church. The largest church is that of Taifbouf, Paris, with 210 members. The churches are distributed into seven associations, which hold frequent meetings for fellowship and for local business, namely: 1. Group of the West. 2. Southwest. 3. Tarn et Ariège. 4. Southeast. 5. East. 6. Centre. 7. Seine. Numerous small congregations are scattered all over France. In Algeria, the Union has six stations. Seven independent churches are not in connection with the Evangelical Union. The "Evangelical Society of France," which was established in 1833, for the diffusion of evangelical truth without regard to the differences of ecclesiastical polity, but has gradually become identified with the independent churches, supports 11 pastors, 8 evangelists, and 27 teachthe year ending May, 1868, were £5,240. The The expenditures of the society during «Evangelical Church of Lyons," which was founded in 1832, is an entirely independent church, which carries on missionary operations in the surrounding districts, extending to the Departments of Isère, Ain, and Rhone. The united church has more than 700 members, and Sunday-schools containing about 250 chil 15. Congregational College of Victoria, Mel- 16. Camden College, Sydney. 18. Cotton End.... ... 1863 1863 1840 The total number of colleges and institutes in the British possessions was 30; number of students in colleges, 69; number of native students in heathen lands, about 170; total of students, 553; number of deceased ministers, 60. The London Missionary Society, which, although originally undenominational, is now chiefly supported by Congregationalists, report ed in 1868 an income of £111,306 19s. 4d., and an expenditure of £92,464 18s. It supported 159 English missionaries, 5,963 native ordained pastors, 660 native preachers, 29,847 churchmembers; native population about 159,650,614; schools, 30,960. The revenue and expenditures of the principal Congregational societies, in 1868, was as follows: III. CONTINENT OF EUROPE.-Most of the independent churches of France are united in the "Union of Evangelical Churches of France" (L'Union des Eglises Evangéliques de France), formed in August, 1849. The constitution of the Union provides that "each church which enters the Union preserves the liberty of determining for itself its own constitution, according to its convictions and necessities. It regulates, accordingly, its own discipline and the form of its internal government." "Every church, in order to enter the Union, must be constituted on the principle of individual profession of faith, with a guarantee of discipline being exercised by the church itself-no mere Christian instruction, on arrival at a certain age, of those so instructed, giving any right to ers. dren. Altogether the independent (free) The "Free Evangelical Church," in the An "Alliance of Free or Independent Evangelical Churches" was founded in 1860. All churches free of state control are admissible which adopt the simple evangelical confession of faith adopted by the Alliance, practise a Scripture discipline, recognize the ministry as a divine institution, and engage in the propagation of the gospel. The question of baptism is left unopened. The object of the Alliance is sought to be obtained by the holding of conferences for mutual edification and encouragement, and by the establishment of institutions likely to favor the true idea of a church. The Alliance has been joined by the Free Evangelical Churches of France, Geneva, Vaud, Neufchatel, Berne, Belgium, Eberfeld (Prussia), Ermelo and Middleburg (Holland), and the Baptist Church of the north of France. CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. The second session of the Fortieth Congress* convened at Washington on December 2, 1867. For the President's Message, see PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, ANNUAL CYCLOPÆDIA, 1867. *The following is a list of the members of Congress: SENATE. Alabama-Willard Warner, George E. Spencer. Arkansas-Alexander McDonald, Benjamin F. Rice.* California-Cornelius Cole, John Conness. Connecticut-James Dixon, Orrin 8. Terry. Delaware-James A. Bayard, Willard Saulsbury. Florida-Adonijah S. Welch, July 2d, Thomas W. Osborn, June 30, 1868. Georgia Illinois-Lyman Trumbull, Richard Yates. Indiana-Oliver P. Morton, Thomas A. Hendricks. Kansas-Samuel C. Pomeroy, Edmund C. Ross. Cragin. New Jersey-Alexander G. Cattell, Frederick T. Frelinghuysen. New York-Roscoe Conkling, Edwin D. Morgan. North Carolina-Joseph C. Abbott, John Poor. Ohio-John Sherman, Benjamin F. Wade. Oregon-Henry W. Corbett, George H. Williams. Pennsylvania-Simeon Cameron, Charles R. Buckalew. Rhode Island-William Sprague, Henry B. Anthony. South Carolina-Thomas J. Robertson, Frederick A. Sawyer. Tennessee-David D. Patterson, J. S. Fowler. Vermont-Justin S. Morrill, George F. Edmunds. West Virginia-Peter G. Van Winkle, Waitman T. Willey. Wisconsin-Timothy O. Howe, James R. Doolittle. Not admitted at this session. Mississippi-William L. Sharkey, J. L. Alcorn. Virginia-John C. Underwood, Joseph Segar. Texas-David G. Burnett, O. M. Roberts. California-Samuel B. Axtell, William Higby, James A. Johnson. Connecticut-Richard D. Hubbard, Julius Hotchkiss, Henry H. Starkweather, William H. Barnum. Delaware-John A. Nicholson. Florida-Charles M. Hamilton. Georgia J. W. Clift, Nelson Tift, William P. Edwards, Samuel F. Gove, Charles H. Prince, John H. Christy, P. M. B. Young. Illinois-Norman B. Judd, John F. Farnsworth, Elihu B. Washburne, Abner C. Harding, Ebon C. Ingersoll, Burton C. Cook, Henry P. H. Bromwell, Shelby M. Cullom, Lewis W. Ross, Albert G. Burr, Samuel S. Marshall, Jehu Baker, Green B. Raum; at large, John A. Logan. 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. Iowa-James F. Wilson, Hiram Price, William B. Allison, William Loughridge, Granville M. Dodge, Asahel W. Hubbard. Benjamin Wade, of Ohio, was President pro tem. of the Senate, and Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker of the House. In the Senate, on December 4th, the following resolution was considered: Louisiana-J. Hale Sypher, (vacancy) Joseph P. Newsham, Michael Vidal, W. Jasper Blackburn. Maine-John Lynch, Sidney Perham, James G. Blaine, John A. Peters, Frederick A. Pike. Maryland Hiram McCullough, Stevenson Archer, Charles E. Phelps, Francis Thomas, Frederick Stone. 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. Michigan-Fernando C. Beaman, Charles Upson, Anstin Blair, Thomas W. Ferry, Rowland E. Trowbridge, John F. Driggs. Minnesota-William Windom, Ignatius Donnelly. Missouri-William A. Pile, Carman A. Newcomb, James R. McCormick, Joseph J. Gravelly, Joseph W. McClurg, Robert T. Van Horn, Benjamin F. Loan, John F. Benjamin, George W. Anderson. Nebraska-John Taffe. Nevada-Delos R. Ashley. New Hampshire-Jacob HI. Ela, Aaron F. Stevens, Jacob Benton. New Jersey-William Moore, Charles Haight, Charles Sitgreaves, John Hill, George A. Halsey. 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. Robertson, Charles H. Van Wyck, John H. Ketcham, Thomas Cornell, John V. L. Pruyn, John A. Griswold, Orange Ferris, Calvin T. Hulburd, James M. Marvin, William C. Fields, Addison H. Laflin, Alexander H. Bailey, John C. Churchill, Dennis McCarthy, Theodore M. Pomeroy, William H. Kelsey, William S. Lincoln, Hamilton Ward, Lewis Selye, Burt Van Horn, James M. Humphrey, Henry Van Aernam. North Carolina-J. R. French, David Heaton, O. H. Dockery, J. T. Dewees, Israel G. Leash, Nathaniel Boyden, A. H. Jones. Ohio-Benjamin Eggleston, Samuel F. Carey, Robert C. Schenck, William Lawrence, William Mungen, Reader W. Clarke, Samuel Shellabarger, John Beatty, Ralph P. Buckland, James M. Ashley, John T. Wilson, Philadelph Van Trump, Columbus Delano, Martin Welker, Tobías A. Plants, John A. Bingham, Ephraim R. Eckley, Rufus P. Spalding, James A. Garfield. Oregon-Rufus Mallory. Pennsylvania - Samuel J. Randall, Charles O'Neill, Leonard Myers, William D. Kelley, Caleb N. Taylor, Benjamin M. Boyer, John M. Broomall, J. Lawrence Getz, Thaddeus Stevens, Henry L. Cake, Daniel M. Van Auken, George W. Woodward, Ulysses Mercur, George F. Miller, Adam J. Glossbrenner, William H. Koontz, Daniel J. Morrell, Stephen F. Wilson, Glenni W. Scofield, Darwin A. Finney, John Covode, James K. Moorhead, Thomas Williams, George V. Lawrence. Rhode Island-Thomas A. Jenckes, Nathan F. Dixon. South Carolina-B. F. Whittemore, C. C. Bowen, Simon Corley, James H. Goss, J. P. M. Epping, E. H. Dickson. Tennessee-Robert R. Butler, Horace Maynard, William B. Stokes, James Mullins, John Trimble, Samuel M. Arnell, Isaac R. Hawkins, David A. Nunn. Vermont-Frederick E. Woodbridge, Luke P. Poland, Worthington C. Smith. West Virginia-Chester D. Hubbard, Bethuel M. Kitchen, Daniel Polslev. Wisconsin-Halbert E. Paine, Benjamin F. Hopkins, Amasa Cobb, Charles A. Eldridge, Philetus Sawyer, Cadwalader C. Washburn. MississippiTexasVirginia Not admitted at this session. Delegates from the Territories. Arizona-Coles Bashford. Resolved, That the message of the President of the United States, with the reports of the heads of departments, without the accompanying documents, be printed, and that three thousand additional copies be printed for the use of the Senate. Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, said: "I move to strike out the words relating to the President's message, so that if there are extra copies printed they may be the reports of the departments, to which, so far as I know, there is no objection. There is really a reason, independent of economy, why we should not circulate extra copies of the President's message. It has already been characterized as a libel; unquestionably it is a libel; it is an incendiary document, calculated to stimulate the rebellion once more and to provoke civil war. It is a direct appeal to the worst passions and the worst prejudices of those rebels who, being subdued on the battle-field, still resist through the aid of the President of the United States. It is the evidence of a direct coalition between the President and the former rebels. If Jefferson Davis were President of the United States, he could not send to this chamber a message different in character. I have often said that Andrew Johnson was the successor of Jefferson Davis, and this message is a complete confirmation of all that I have heretofore said. I hope the Senate will not put its hands in the public Treasury in order to circulate over the country a document which is so offensive to Congress, and which, just in proportion to its influence, is calculated to arouse the worst sentiments throughout the rebel States." Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, said: "I go quite as far as any one in condemnation of the tone, temper, and doctrines of the message, but I think we are not justified in departing from the ordinary practice of this body. The message is an assault of the President of the United States upon the Congress of the United States for attempting by legislation to take the governments of the rebel States out of the control of traitors into whose keeping he had placed these governments. The writer of this message seems to have forgotten altogether the action of the President in 1865, and as the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Edmunds) suggests to me, he seems almost to have forgotten that we ever had any rebellion at all. The message remembers to forget that President Johnson in the summer and autumn of 1865 assumed and exercised constitutional powers for the exercise of which he now condemns the legislative branch of the Government. If the President's reconstruction policy was within the provisions of the Constitution, surely the reconstruction policy of Congress is within the provisions of the Constitution. If the President without the authority of law could fix the terms and conditions for the reconstruction of the rebel States, surely Congress, the law-making power of the Government, could determine the terms and conditions of reconstruction." Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut, followed, saying: "Mr. President, if it were possible to suppress the message entirely, to keep it out of sight, to prevent its being read by the American people, I should not be surprised at the motion which has been made. Standing here now as the advocate of a system of measures condemned by the people, confessedly in a minority, as those Senators now are-in a minority of the people of the United States, as shown by their latest verdict, rebuked, repudiated by the people-my friend (Mr. Conness) smiles; I shall soon come to his case-I am not surprised in the least that there should be a desire to suppress arguments and information of the character contained in this message. If the question were only whether it should be printed, I should be willing to leave it where the Senator from Massachusetts who last spoke has left it, for the Senate to decide. I think. that entirely immaterial. The public have read it; it has been spread before the people of the United States, and I should be satisfied to leave it there if the other Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Michigan had not denounced the document in language which, to my mind, I will not say is improper in this body-that is not for me to say-but denounced it in a manner which I think it does not deserve. "Now, what have they said? The Senator from Michigan (Mr. Howard) begins by saying it is a libel, and I think he said an insult to the Congress of the United States. The Senator from Massachusetts said he had often said, had been in the habit of saying, that the President of the United States was a traitor equally guilty with Jefferson Davis." Mr. Sumner: "That is not what I said. I said the successor of Jefferson Davis." Mr. Dixon: "The successor of Jefferson Davis-how? In his principles, of course. The Senator does not claim that he is the successor in office. He says the President is the successor of Jefferson Davis and equally guilty, and still he complains that the President has been guilty of a libel. It struck me at the time, that, if there was any competition of vehement language between the President and that Senator it would be very easy to decide who in vituperation had the advantage. He who denounces the President as a traitor and the successor of Jefferson Davis is not the man to complain of any severity of language on the part of the President of the United States. "Now, sir, what is this message? Is it deserving of the severe attacks which have been made upon it by these two distinguished Senators? Is it a libel? Is it violent in language? Does it show, as the Senator from Massachusetts says, bad temper? In the first place, what is the duty of the President? The Constitution says that he shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. It has always been customary for the President of the United States at the opening of a session of Congress to send in a formal message, to give that information annually, or at each session, with that formality and solemnity which attaches to this document. He has now done it. I confess that I can see nothing of violence or ill temper, much less of a libellous character, in this message. He expresses strong opinionswith regard to what? With regard to the constitutionality of certain laws now on the statute-book." After further debate, the motion of Mr. Sumner to amend was rejected by the following vote: YEAS-Messrs. Cameron, Chandler, Howard, Howe, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Sumner, Thayer, and Wade-9. NAYS-Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Cole, Conkling, Conness, Corbett, Cragin, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Drake, Edmunds, Ferry, Fessenden, Freling huysen, Grimes, Harlan, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, Morgan, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Norton, Patterson of New Hampshire, Patterson of Tennessee, Ross, Sherman, Stewart, Tipton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, Williams, and Wilson-36. ABSENT-Messrs. Bayard, Cattell, Fowler, Guthrie, Nye, Saulsbury, Sprague, and Yates-8. On December 18th the President sent to both Houses of Congress the following message: Gentlemen of the Senate and of the House of Representatives: An official copy of the order issued by Major-General Winfield S. Hancock, commander of the fifth military district, dated headquarters in New Orleans, Louisiana, on the 29th day of November, has reached me through the regular channels of the War Department, and I herewith communicate it to Congress for such action as may seem to be proper in view of all the circumstances. It will be perceived that General Hancock announces that he will make the law the rule of his conduct; that he will uphold the courts and other civil authorities in the performance of their proper duties; and that he will use his military power only to preserve the peace and enforce the law. He declares very explicitly that the sacred right of the trial by jury and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be crushed out or trodden under foot. He goes further, and, in one comprehensive sentence, asserts that the principles of American liberty are still the inheritance of this people, and ever should be. When a great soldier with unrestricted power in his hands to oppress his fellow-men voluntarily foregoes the chance of gratifying his selfish ambition and devotes himself to the duty of building up the liberties and strengthening the laws of his country, he presents an example of the highest public virtue that human nature is capable of practising. The strongest claim of Washington to be "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen," is founded on the great fact that in all his illustrious career he scrupulously abstained from violating the legal and constitutional rights of his fellow-citizens. When he surrendered his commission to Congress the President of that body spoke his highest praise in saying that he had "always regarded the rights of the civil authorities through all dangers and disasters." Whenever power above the law courted his acceptance, he calmly put the temptation aside. By such magnanimous acts of forbearance he won the universal admiration of mankind, and left a name which has no rival in the history of the world. I am far from saying that General Hancock is the only officer of the American Army who is influenced of them are faithfully devoted to the principles for by the example of Washington. Doubtless thousands which the men of the Revolution laid down their lives. But the distinguished honor belongs to him of being the first officer in high command south of the Potomac, since the close of the civil war, who has given utterance to these noble sentiments in the form of a military order. I respectfully suggest to Congress that some public recognition of General Hancock's patriotic conduct is due, if not to him, to the friends of law and justice throughout the country. Of such an act as his, at such a time, it is but fit that the dignity should be vindicated and the virtue proclaimed, so that its value as an example may not be lost to the nation. ANDREW JOHNSON. WASHINGTON, D. C., December 18, 1867. In the Senate, on December 5th, Mr. Sumner, of Massachusetts, moved to take up the bill for the further security of equal rights in the District of Columbia. It provided that the word "white," wherever it occurred in the laws relating to the District of Columbia, or in the charter or ordinances of the cities of Washington or Georgetown, and operated as a limitation on the right of any elector of the District, or of either of those cities, to hold any office, or to be selected and to serve as a juror, should be repealed, and that it should be unlawful for any person or officer to enforce, or attempt to enforce, that limitation after the passage of the act. Mr. Sumner said: "This bill is in the precise terms of a bill that passed both Houses of Congress on the last day of the last meeting in July, and which, after being duly engrossed, was sent to the President. It was not returned by him before the rising of Congress, and I introduced this precise copy on the first day of our ator from Illinois, I forebore calling it up for late meeting. At the suggestion of the Senconsideration in order to await the expiration of eleven consecutive days of meeting of the Senate, to see if within that time the bill would be returned to Congress with or without his objections. It was not returned. As that act failed for the want of the President's signature, I propose now simply to review what was done at the last session, and to present the act again for the signature of the President." The bill was reported without amendment, ordered to be engrossed for a reading, and read. Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, said: “Mr. President, in voting upon laws for the District of Columbia, I have always felt it obligatory upon me to vote for such laws as I would be willing to vote for my own people at home for their government. The Congress of the United States, under the Constitution, enacts the laws for this District; but inasmuch as the people of the District have no voice in our selection, I think we ought only to vote for such laws as we know to be agreeable to our own folks, to say the least of it. If the people of a State have rejected a proposition by a decided majority, and we know that the white population |