網頁圖片
PDF
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

of favoritism has also been shown towards the District of Columbia, which is entitled to equal, though not to greater, rights than other parts of the Union. And yet it appears, from the document which I have just referred to, that apFo of cadets from that District have been as follows: n 1829, four cadets: in each of the years, 1828, 1827, 1826, and 1825, three; in 1815, nine; and in 1814, eight. This disproportionate number of appointments, as com: pared with the population of the District, is partial, and, therefore, unjust. It is not probable that either of these departures stom the principles which ought to be observed in the administration of this institution will be repeated. Should Congress deem it necessary, they may guard against a repetition of them by passing a law for the purpose. I did not expect to hear it asserted by any one, however strong might be his prejudices against the academy at West Point, that the instruction there communicated to the cadets did not qualify them for their profession. Let me state to the House in what that instruction consists. It comprehends the theory and the practice of the art of war, in all its branches. To the acquisition of the sciences requisite to constitute the accomplished officer, from nine to ten hours are laboriously devoted for six days in the week, during ten months in every year. The practical military instructions, which I quote from page 376 of “The General Regulations of the Army,” are as follows: “First year, school of the soldier—guard and police duties of privates. Second year, school of the company— duties of corporals. Third year, school of the battalion— duties of sergeants—exercise and manoeuvres of artillery pieces. Fourth year, evolutions of the line—duties of orderly sergeants and commissioned officers, (including those of the battalion staff) and of officers of the day— remainder of the instruction in artillery—the sword exercise—practical military instruction throughout the year. Field exercises only will be limited between 1st April and 1st November following. There will be an encampment of the cadets annually, commencing on the 1st of July, and ending on the 31st of August ensuing, during which the instruction will be exclusively military.” In order to ascertain the improvement and proficiency of the cadets, they are carefully examined, semi-annually, by the Academic Board; and once a year they undergo a strict examination in public, before the Professors, and a Board of Visiters, selected by the War Department, from various sections of the Union. With a knowledge of the facts which I have detailed, relating to the instruction and discipline at West Point, no one can doubt the competence of the graduates to discharge all the duties of a soldier. Without a knowledge of facts, no one ought to hazard criticism or censure. Having submitted the grounds and reasons upon which I rely, in opposition to the arguments principally insisted upon by those who advocate the disbanding or reduction of our army, the diminution of the number of its officers, and the abolition of the Military Academy, I will take up the time of the House no longer than to notice, briefly, one or two observations introduced into this discussion, which I have not hitherto commented upon. . It has been asked, why should we rely upon a standing army in time of peace, to garrison our forts, and to protect our frontiers from Indian depredations, in preference to the militia of the country . Have gentlemen, making this inquiry, reflected upon the hardship which would be imposed upon our citizens, accustomed to the ease and comforts of civil life, by withdrawing them for periods of three or six months from their ordinary occupations, and subjecting them to the strictness of discipline, the restraints of martial law, and all the privations which the soldier encounters? Would they not feel these hardships and privations to be oppressive and intolerable The experience of two wars has taught us that the employment of militia is more expensive than that of regular troops; that larger num

bers of them are necessary to accomplish the same objects; that it requires alonger time than they usually serve, to render them perfectly acquainted with their duties; and that the mere change in their diet and habits occasions sickness among them, and consigns one-half of them to the hospitals. If these are the consequences, personal and national, resulting from the substitution of militia for regulars, why, should they be substituted Because, say gentlemen, a standing army is dangerous to our liberties. It is scarcely possible to conceive that an argument like this can be seriously relied upon. To the maintenance of a large regular army, when we are not at war, I am as decidedly opposed as any individual upon this floor; but, with a population of twelve millions of inhabitants, with a militia brave and expert in the use of firearms, amounting to fourteen or fifteen hundred thousand, can our liberties be affected by a standing army of six thousand ment Sir, when the day shall arrive that the liberty of this nation can be endangered by six thousand, or by ten times six thousand men, it could not be secured by any human means. Before such a force could accomplish the destruetion of our liberty, we must ourselves have become utterly regardless of its preservation. [Here the debate closed for this day.]

JUDGE PECK.

The House then went into Committee of the Whole, Mr. WILDE in the chair, on the case of Judge Peck.

Mr. PETTIS having addressed the committee in defence of the Judge, and against the proposed impeachment,

Mr. EVERETT made a few observations. He could not bring his mind to the conclusion that Judge Peck ought to be impeached; and, therefore, he could not vote for the resolution. At the same time, he could not admit that Judge Peck's conduct had been free from blame. He, therefore, wished the resolution to be so amended as that he could vote for it. He referred to an opinion which he had hastily made while the Clerk was reading the defence of Judge Peck, that the Judge would have done better, had he rested his case with the report of the Judiciary Committee. He now, after a perusal of the defence, revoked that opinion. He thought the Judge had done well; and that the House, on a careful perusal of the defence, would admit that he had done well. He considered the defence as one of the most able papers laid before Congress for years. He said, he had looked in vain in the evidence for proof of evil intent. On the contrary, there was proof of the general good intentions and mildness of the Judge. He could not, therefore, punish with severity his first offence. He is already osufficiently by these proceedings. He moved to amend the resolution by striking out all after the word “Resolved," and inserting as follows:

That though, on the evidence now before it, this House does not approve of the conduct of James H. Peck, judge of the district court of the United States for the district of Missouri, in his proceeding by attachment against Luke E. Lawless, for alleged contempt of the said court; yet there is not sufficient evidence of evil intent, to authorize the House to impeach the said judge of high misdemeanors in office.

Mr. STORRS, of New York, said he could not vote for this resolution, because it contemplated a final action on the case by this House. He deprecated such a course, as affording a mischievous precedent. He expressed his regret that the gentleman from Massachusetts had made |a. appeal to the sympathy of the House, in a case where | sympathy should be kept out of sight. He was of. to any thing which would compound this matter. He referred to the feelings with which he had himself entered on the examination of this case, and the strong disinclina|tion which he felt to produce an impeachment. But he had gone into it, and he had a high and solemn duty to

| perform, which precluded sympathy. As to the oppor

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

tunity given by the Judge to Mr. Lawless to purge him-
self of the contempt, he [Mr. S.] considered that it was
insulting, after a violation of the personal rights of Mr.
Lawless, and the usurpation of a jurisdiction which the
Judge did not possess. He admitted that to have stricken
the attorney from the rolls of his court, might not have
subjected the Judge to censure; but it was the violation
of that personal liberty, secured by the constitution, the im-
prisonment of Mr. Lawless in the felon's room, which jus-
tified impeachment.
Mr. BURGES moved to amend the amendment, by pre-
fixing to it a modification in substance, stating, that al-
though the House might not, if called on, altogether ap-
prove the conduct of Judge Peck, yet that, perceiving no
evidence of ill intent, &c. the House would not sanction an
impeachment.
r. EVERETT (Mr. Bunges having withdrawa, his
amendment) modified his resolution so as to meet the views
of the gentleman, slightly changing the phraseology.
Mr. BURGES moved that the committee now rise,
which was negatived; yeas, 70—nuys, 76.
Mr. ELLSWORTH then occupied the attention of the
committee in support of the resolution. He, as a member
of the Judiciary Committee, had given the subject full ex-
amination, and had come to the opinion that this impeach-
ment should take place. He saw nothing in the publica-
tion of Mr. Lawless which ought to have drawn down the
punishment inflicted by this Judge. It was an arbitrary
F. and he considered it to be the duty of the
ouse to in Pooh the Judge.
Mr. HUNTINGTON then made some remarks in favor
of the Judge. Before he had concluded,
Mr. VANCE moved that the committee rise: yeas, 64–

nays, 77.
¥. HUNTINGTON then continued his remarks.
Mr. BURGES commenced some remarks against the
impeachment.
r. MILLER moved that the committee rise, it being
between six and seven o'clock; yeas, 63—nays, 61.
The committee then rose, and reported progress.

. SATURDAY, APRIL 24, 1830. ORGANIZATION OF THE ARMY.

The House then resumed the consideration of the resolution calling on the Secretary of War to report a new organization of the army, embracing a reduction of the officers. - Mr. CAVE JOHNSON said, it is to be regretted that the gentlemen who are opposed to the adoption of the resolution now under consideration, have thought it necessary to indulge in such a latitude of debate, and urge upon the consideration of the House questions of great importance to the country, upon a mere resolution of inquiry. These things would have been more properly the subject of debate upon some future occasion, when some specific proposition should be submitted to the House for the reduction of the army. I am sure it was not anticipated, either by my colleague, [Mr. Desha] who introduced the original resolution to the House, or by the Military Committee, who reported the one now under discussion; but if gentlemen will press upon the House a premature discussion of these important questions, it becomes the friends of the resolution to meet and answer them in the best way they cau. e object of the resolution was to direct the attention of the House to the disproportion existing in the present organization of the military peace establishment be: tween the number of officers and the privates retained in the service of the United States, and the consequent increased expenditure of the public money. This was referred to the Military Committee, who reported to the House the resolution now on your table, merely referring

its consideration to"the Secretary of War, and asking of him the best mode of effecting this object, if it could be done without injury to the public service: acting upon the belief that so much of the present session had elapsed, as to preclude the possibility of acting finally upon a question of so much importance to the nation at this time, and that such additional information might be given to this House as would enable them to act more efficiently, and with less danger to the service of the country, at some future eriod. To this reference I did not expect an objection would have been made, after the ...] made by the chairman of the Military Committee, that the adoption of the resolution would not be considered as the expression of an opinion by the House, that any reduction could be made, with propriety, of the number of officers now in the public ser? vice, and least of all did I expect an objection from the chairman himself, who reported, and then advocated, and now avows his determination to vote for the resolution; and it seems to me somewhat strange that the gentleman from South Carolina should have thought it necessary to occupy so much of the time of the House, four successive mornings, in attempting to prove that there was no necessity for the reduction of the number of officers or men at present in the service of the United States, and to convince this House that the resolution reported by the gentleman himself, as the chairman of the Military Committee, and for which he intends to vote, ought not to be supported by any other member of this House. If it be true, sir, that this disproportion does not exist, it certainly follows that the consideration or adoption of the present resolution is wholly useless. There is a great difference between the chairman of the Military Committee and my colleague in the calculations presented by them to the House as to the actual number of officers in the army, or those who ought to be so estimated. The one estimates alone the commissioned officers, or gentlemen who wear the sword and are in actual command, and only makes one officer for every twenty or twenty-five men; the other estimates, also, the non-commissioned officers and staff officers connected with the peace establishment, and thus makes one officer for every seven or eight men. Each is probably correct, according to the respective dates assumed by them, and each falls short of the actual disproportion existing between the common soldiers and other individuals connected with the army, who are, I presume, esteemed above the grade of the common soldiers. I take, sir, a different view of this subject from either of the gentlemen, and which will probably show the true disproportion existing in our army between the common soldiers and the officers, and which will account for the increased expenditures for the last few years, to some extent, in this branch of the Government. I look at every individual as connected with the peace establishment, who is in the pay of the Government, whether a commissioned or non-commissioned officer, or private, or clerks, or messengers. I care not by what name he may be called; and when viewed in this light, the statement which I now hold in my hand, and which has been prepared from the documents furnished during the present ses. sion, and which specifies each individual, and the part of the army to which he is attached, but which I will not now trouble the House by reading, will satisfy the House that there is retained in the pay of the Government, for the control and management of the soldiers of the line, which my colleague now informs me numbers five thousand five hundred men, near one thousand individuals, making one individual connected with the command of the army, for about every five soldiers of the line. The question then is, whether, the services of any of these individuals may be dispensed with at this time without injury to the public service. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the details of an army to speak with certainty

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

as to the exact proportion that ought to exist between the number of officers and soldiers of the line; but, according to my recollection, in the late war with Great Britain, less than half the number of officers belonging to our peace establishment were deemed sufficient for the command of even a greater number of men, and that, too, whilst engaged in actual service; and there can be no propriety in retaining in the pay of the Government, in time of peace, twice as many officers as the Government would require for the command of the same number of men in war. My limited experience on such subjects will not justify me in attempting to point out the supernumerary officers now retained in public service, and submit. ting to the House a plan of my own for its reorganization; #. I may be permitted, by way of example, and to show e necessity of the passage of the present resolution, to turn the attention of the House to a branch of the army that seems to me to have a greater excess of officers, in proportion to the duties to be performed, than, perhaps, any other. For the purpose of paying the army, now consisting of upwards of six thousand men, there is retained in the public service one paymaster general, whose salary is two thousand five hundred dollars, and three clerks, whose salaries amount to three thousand nine hundred dollars, and one messenger, with a salary of six hundred dollars, and fourteen paymasters, each with a salary of about eight hundred and ninety dollars, (making the sum of nineteen thousand four hundred and sixty dollars,) whose principal if not only duty is to pay off the small number of men now retained in public service. I cannot believe, sir, that this number of officers should be retained, and that amount of money expended for the purpose of paying the number of men belonging to the army; it seems to me that an additional clerk or two in the Treasury Department might discharge all these duties without the slightest inconvenience being felt by the public. The chairman of the Military Committee next urges the propriety of our Government retaining in the military peace establishment a greater proportion of officers than in time of war, the skeleton of an army, I think he calls it, that the nation may be prepared, upon any sudden emergency, with skilful and experienced officers, to take the command of, and discipline the troops, and attributes our disasters at the commencement of the late war to the want of mili tary skill and science in the officers appointed to command. I cannot think any emergency likely to arise in our country, that will not give us ample time to convert our militia into skilful and disciplined troops, prepared to meet any dangers they may have to encounter. We are not, like other nations of the world, surrounded by neighbors, each with a standing army, that may make sudden incursions, upon our territories, and assail and destroy us. The militia of the country have always been, and always will be, competent to resist any attacks from the savage tribes that reside upon our borders, Canada is too feeble to be any just cause of alarm. Nor can I admit that the disasters which occurred at the commencement of the late war are proerly attributable to the causes which have been assigned. P. rather think that most of them originated in a mis. taken confidence reposed by our Government in the officers attached po our former peace establishment, under the belief that their experience and skill, acquired in time of peace, better qualified them for the command of our armies, than other citizens of the country; or o: more properly to the want of that vigor of intellect and acti. vity of body, which too often accompany too much leisure or indulgence in every pursuit in life. I should like to know, sir, what essential services had been rendered to the country in the late war by the officers of the old army. With but few exceptions, so far as I recollect, they were esteemed inefficient and wholly useless. These unfortunate incidents in our history, from whatever eause they may have originated, seem to me to prove but little, either

for or against the position assumed by the chairman of the Military Committee.

It is again urged that the present peace establishment is not greater, in proportion to the population and wealth of the United States, than it was during the administration of Jefferson. I cannot, sir, perceive any good reason why the prosperity of the country should be considered a rea8 on Å. the increase of our army, or the expenditures for it. That the finances of the country will justify us in maintaining twice the present number of troops, or even more. is not disputed by any. But, sir, what use have we for them? Our military posts are to be guarded, our frontiers to be protected. In the early periods of our Government, we were surrounded by numerous and warlike tribes of Indians, always disposed for war, and stimulated by British traders to make attacks upon our frontier settlements, which were at that time separated from the interior of the country by mountains almost impassable. Then three thousand men were deemed sufficient for our standing army; but now, when we have the almost entire control of their trade, their numbers greatly diminished, their spirits humbled by the repeated disasters to which they have been subjected in their wars with us; when their power has left them, and when our resources have increased in a greater proportion than theirs have diminished, and when our frontiers are surrounded by new and flourishing States, sufficiently near them to render any assistance that may be necessary, is our standing army to be doubled Certainly not, sir. As the population and wealth of our country advance, we are better able to protect ourselves, and there is less necessity for regular troops to be employed for that purpose.

I should have been gratified, sir, if the gentleman from South Carolina, whilst comparing the number of troops now in service, and our resources, with those of the administration of Jefferson, had also compared the expenditures of the same period for the same purpose with those of the present time. He would then have perceived that the present expenditures of the army more than double those of that period in proportion to the numbers. For these reasons, I am inclined to think that there might be not only a diminution of the number of the officers of the army, but also of the number of men, without the slightest injury to the public service, and that the whole peace establishment should be reduced to the number of officers ald men actually necessary to take charge of the fortifications, and to secure the public property. I would not, sir, have one man in the employment of the Government, either in the civil or military departments, whose services were not demanded by the interest of the country.

oil. Military Academy at West Point has been adverted to by the friends of the present resolution, as one of the abuses existing in the present peace establishment, and it has been eulogized by the chairman of the Military Committee, and represented as one of the most useful institutions in our country. I have ever thought, sir, that it was founded upon principles wholly inconsistent with the true policy of our country, and at war with the best interests of the people; it destroys that equality of rights and privileges which should be extended to every citizen of the country; it is a system of patronage, by which the military offices of the country will be confined to the sons of the wealthy and influential, and only sought through the favor of the Executive, or the members of this House; its continuance a few years, I fear, will be the destruction of all honorable emulation among the citizens of the country for them. The military appointments made by the Government, more particularly than any other, should be made accessible to the humblest individual in the community, and should be the reward of qualification and merit alone. If the Government chooses to indulge in the education of any portion of the citizens of the

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

country, why confine it to the military department? Why not extend it, likewise, to the officers of the navy; and to your civil as well as military or naval officers In my opinion, sir, it would be much more useful to extend these benefits to the officers employed in the civil departments of the Government. The interest of the Government and the dearest rights of the people are every day subjected to their control, whilst we may not need, in a lifetime, the assistance of one of your military educated gentlemen; and if we did, we might, in all probability, look for it in vain. We have constant employment for the exercise of the best talents and information of the officers engaged in the civil departments of the Government, and may never need the military knowledge given to the cadets; but if it be the will of the nation to support institutions of this character, and pay professors for superintending the same, and select and support young gentlemen for education, can there be any propriety in paying the favorite few to join the institution, and receive from the Government an education equal to any that can be acquired elsewhere in our country If the Government establishes the institution, prepares quarters for the accommodation of the students, and pays professors to superintend the same, and would but make it accessible to every individual who would go, thousands would gladly flock to the institution, alone for the education that would be there acquired, without asking of the Government any compensation, and without the privilege of being placed in the line of promotion to the military offices. of the country, to the exclusion of other citizens. But now, sir, the Government not only prepares, at a great expense, the necessary buildings for the accommodation of the students, and pays enormous prices to the instructors, but actually pays the cadets for receiving the blessings of an excellent education, about one dollar for each day that they remain in the institution, amounting to the aggregate sum, for the pay of the officers of the institution and the cadets, of about ninety thousand dollars annually. It will not do to say that they are paid as officers of the army. for if they were so, their pay ought not to commence whilst they are receiving, free of expense, the best education the country can afford, and that, too, at a period of life when their time would be probably occupied in such pursuits, if they were not officers of the army. But, sir, they ought not to be considered officers of the army; they are students, engaged in a course of studies that qualifies them for any other pursuit in life, as much as that of the army; and the document furnished us proves that there has been as yet but one out of six who receives admission into the institution that continues in the service of the Government. There have been admitted into this institution two thousand and fifty-three students, of which five hundred and ninetyone graduated, and three hundred and sixty-one now remain in the service of the country. These facts prove to my mind, clearly, that this institution is resorted to, more for the purposes of general education, than with a view of becoming officers of the army. But why is it, that, after having expended such sums of money in their education, we should give them the preference over the other citizens of the country, in the command of the armies? Other citizens of the country may, aud do frequently, receive military education, at their own expense, and are as well qualified and meritorious as the young gentlemen educated at West Point; but, if they apply for office, their claims must be postponed in favor of those educated at this bantling of the Government, without even an inquiry made as to their merits or qualifications. But, sir, if this institution, limited as it must necessarily be in its operation, must still be kept up, ought the selection of the cadets to be confined to that class of the community who have not otherwise the means of receiving an education ? Ought it not, sir, to be limited to the pennyless orphans of the brave men who have perished in the service of the country? If, sir, the Government has such large sums of money, Wol, WI.-103.

annually, to bestow, its liberality had better be extended to the officers and soldiers who served in the militia during the revolutionary war, and who now need its assistance, than to that class of young gentleman who are enabled to procure appointments at the academy through the wealth and influence of their family and friends. When these things come to be considered and weighed by the American people, rely upon it, sir, that this institution, which has been so much lauded, and puffed into importance and popularity, will be put down—it is a species of aristocracy, inconsistent with the liberality and freedom of our institutions, and more expensive than any other institution in our country, and which I cannot but think would long since have been destroyed, had not the power of appointment been transferred from the Executive branch of this Government to the members of this House. But if the House should not concur with me in opinion that this institution ought to be destroyed, still the number of cadets ought to be regulated so as to correspond with the wants of the army; and the expenditures of the institution ought to be diminished within reasonable bounds; and these considerations alone would justify us in the adoption of the resolution. The resolution which is now the subject of discussion, contemplates much more than a bare reduction of the excess of officers now retained in our peace establishment; it strikes at a branch of that system of excessive expenditure which has been too much indulged in by our Government for the last few years; it contemplates a diminution of the annual expenses incurred in maintaining and supporting our present peace establishment, which ought to be done, as I shall presently show, whether the army can be reduced or not. The gentleman, from New York [Mr. TAYLon] has reminded us that, when this subject was before Congress in 1821, and when the army was reduced from ten thousand to six thousand men, he was an advocate for that reduction, and for which he and those who acted with him were denounced as radicals; but he is now of opinion that no further reduction can be made without injury to the public service. I am sure, if the gentleman from New York had turned his attention, for a moment, to the expenditures in this branch of the Government for the last few years, and compared them with the expenditures for the same department for a few year prior to the reduction of the army in 1821, he would have still seen the necessity of either reducing the number of officers, or men, or both, or in some way curtailing the necessary expenditures. In this branch of the Government, but little has been gained in the cause of economy by the reduction that took place in 1821. The expenditures of the last few years actually exceed those for a few years prior to that time, when the army was ten thousand strong; which will be seen by a reference to the documents in the War Department, which show that, for the year 1819. “Pay of the army, and subsistence of the officers,” “Subsistence,”

$1,002,829 10 989,213 00

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

H. or R.] Judge Peck. [April 24, 1830.

1829. “Pay of the army, and subsistence theJo. debt; sustain, unimpaired, the public credit; I of the officers,” $1,184,295 11 would husband the resources of the country, by leaving

“Subsistence,” 299,200 92 the money of the people in its proper place—their own

[ocr errors]

From which it appears that the “pay of the army and subsistence of the officers,” for the years 1828 and 1829, when the army was about six thousand strong, exceed that for the years 1819 and 1820, when the army was ten thousand strong, by the sum of five hundred and twenty-two thousand eight hundred and five dollars and twenty-five cents; and that, by the act of 1821, reducing the army to six thousand, we have gained the dismissal of four thousand men from the public service, without any correspondent diminution of the expenses of the army. I would not have it understood, sir, that in making and resenting these estimates to the House, I impute any É. whatever to the officer now presiding at the head of the War Department, or the one who discharged the duties of it during the late administration. If the expenditures are, or have been, excessive or improper, which I by no means assert, blame is properly attributable to this House; if appropriations are made for specific objects by us, it becomes the duty of the Executive to see them applied; if any abuse exist, the Congress of the United states is responsible for it to the nation, and from us the people expect its correction. These estimates are presented solely for the purpose of showing the propriety of the passage of the present resolution, or some one of a :::::... under the hope that the attention of the Secretary of War may be directed to it, and that his experience in the department will enable him to report to us some system for the reduction of the expenditures of the army, that will enable us to act efficiently, and without injury to the public service. The chairman of the Military Committee considers that the present organization of the army ought to be retained as a means of national defence, has eloquently point. ed out the superiority of skilful officers and disciplined troops over the militia, and has illustrated his positions by a recurrence to standing armies of several European nations, and their success over undisciplined troops. I could not, if I was so inclined, follow him through all his illustrations, or successfully controvert ...P. assumed by him. Whether the position assumed by him be true or not, our Government, being based upon different principles from those alluded to by him, must necessarily re. sort to a different mode of defence. I may be permitted here to remark, that, if the gentleman, from South Carolina had turned one other page in the history of those nations, he would have seen the consequences resulting from their social systems. Ironhanded despotism and arbitrary misrule; the people deprived of the right of self-government; immense public debts; and burdensome and oppressive systems of taxation; these are the consequences resulting to European nations from their military organization: the surrender of their liberties is the price they pay for protection by skilful officers and disciplined troops. To my mind, sir, the argument of the gentleman proves the necessity of retaining in the service of this country a very large standing army, rather than the propriety of re; taining in our service the present number of officers and men. That we should prepare for war in time of peace, is undisputed in our country; but how prepare 1. By edu: cating one part of the community to command the other? By setting apart one portion of the citizens for the defence of the other, and sustaining and supporting them in ace? Instead of thus rendering our armies skilful and É. I would rely upon the virtue, the intelligence, and the moral energies of the country; I would arm and discipline the citizens of the country, the militia; I would remove every burden from the finances of the country; pay

pockets; these, in my estimation, are the true preparations of a republic for war; I would leave standing armies and the sword for the monarch and despot. The militia, sir, so often the subject of ridicule and abuse, is the only army upon which we can rely for the protection of our country; the citizens of the country must, and ever will, protect themselves whilst their liberties are worth preserving; they are the supporters of our Government in peace, and must be its defenders in war; our Government is based upon this principle; we trusted them in the revolution, and were not deceived by them; we confided in them in the late war, and were not disappointed. I will not now detain the House . pointing them to instances of courage, patriotism, and valor, in the militia of our country, that would equal, if not surpass, any of the numerous instances to which our attention has been directed by the gentleman from South Carolina; they are familiar to each member of the House, and are unparalleled in the history of any country.

I have j, adverted to the reasons which will induce me to vote for the resolution of my colleague, and flatter myself that we will derive such information from the War Department, should it pass, as will enable us to reorganize the army on some more economical plan, better adapted to the situation of the country, and without injury to the public service. d o the hour expired, and the debate closed, for this

ay.
... JUDGE PECK.

The House then resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. WILDE in the

ckair. Mr. BURGES spoke at length against the original reso. lution. He occupied the floor for about two hours. Mr. WICKLIFFE spoke in reply, and in defence of the course pursued by the Committee on the Judiciary. o amendment offered by Mr. EVERETT was nega. tived. a The resolution offered by the chairman of the commit. tee was agreed to-yeas, 118. The committee then rose, and reported the resolution. Mr. BUCHANAN asked for the yeas and nays oneon, currence in the resolution; which were ordered. Mr. PETTIS then moved a call of the House; which was refused. The question was then taken on concurring with the committee in the resolution, and carried in the affirmative. YEAS.–Messrs. Alexander, Allen, Alston, Anderson, Archer, Armstrong, Barnwell. Barringer, Beekman, Blair, of South Carolina, Bockee, Boon, Borst. Bouldin, Brod. head, Brown, Buchanan, Cahoon, Cambreleng, Campbell, Carson. Chandler, Chilton, Claiborne, Coke, Cole. man, Conner, Cowles, Craig, of New York, Craig, of Vir. ginia, Crawford, Crocheron, Daniel, Davenport, Davis, of South Carolina, Deberry, Denny, Desha, De Witt, Dod. dridge, Drayton, Dudley, Earll, Ellsworth, Evans, of Maine, Evans, of Pennsylvania, Findley, Finch, Forward, Foster, Fry, Gaither, Gilmore, Gordon, Hall, Halsey, Hammons, Harvey, Haynes, Hinds, Hodges, Howard, Hubbard, Ihrie, lsacks, Jennings, Johnson, of Kentucky, Johnson, of Tennessee, Kendall, Kincaid, King, of New York, Lamar, Lea, Lecompte, Letcher, Loyall, Lewis, Lyon, Magee, Maxwell, of New York, Maxwell, of Virginia, McCreery, McDuffie, McIntire, Mitchell, Monell, Muhlenberg, Nuck. olls, Overton, Polk, Potter, Powers, Ramsey, Richardson, Roane, Russel, Seott, Shepperd, Shields, Semmes, Smith, Speight, Spencer, of New York, Spencer, of Maryland, Sprigg, Sterigere, Storrs, of New York, Swift, Taliaferro, Test, Thompson, of Georgia, Thompson, of Ohio, Trez.

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]
« 上一頁繼續 »