Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

until the day after to-morrow, and made the special order for that day.

Mr. BADGER. I have no objection to the motion of my friend from Alabama to postpone this subject till the day after to-morrow, but I object most decidedly to commencing my speech today when it is almost three o'clock.

Mr. CLEMENS. The Senator need not proceed until to-morrow.

Mr. GWIN. I hope the motion will be agreed to, as I want to ask the Senate to go into Executive session on a matter of some importance. The motion was agreed to.

EXECUTIVE SESSION.

On the motion of Mr. GWIN, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of Executive business, and, after some time spent therein, the doors were reopened and the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

TUESDAY, February 10, 1852. The House met at twelve o'clock, m. Prayer by the Rev. C. M. BUTLER, Chaplain of the Senate.

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

TROOPS ON THE OREGON ROUTES. The SPEAKER stated as the first business in order, the motion of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. HAVEN,] to reconsider the vote by which the House adopted, yesterday, a resolution offered by the gentleman from Oregon, [Mr. LANE,]|| in reference to routes to Oregon; and that upon that motion the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GORMAN] was entitled to the floor.

On motion by Mr. HAVEN, leave was granted to withdraw from the files of the House the papers in the case of Peter Covil, for the purpose of reference to the Pension Department.

Mr. KING, of New York. I desire, with the permission of the gentleman from Indiana, to ask leave to report back from the Judiciary Committee, Senate bill amendatory of the act entitled 'An act to provide for holding the courts of the United States in case of the sickness or other disability of the judges of the district courts, approved July 29th, 1850.

The bill is a very short one, and may be disposed of in a few moments. There is a very urgent necessity for its passage.

Mr. GORMAN. What disposition does the gentleman propose to make of the bill?

Mr. KING. I desire to put it upon its passage. It will not take two minutes.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I object to it. The resolution, the vote on the adoption of which, it is proposed to reconsider, is as follows:

Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to communicate to the House what steps, if any, have been taken to insure the protection of emigrants en route to Oregon, against the depredations of the Indians of that Territory; and in case no such steps have been taken for that purpose, that he be requested to cause the regi ment of Mounted Rifles to be placed upon duty within the Territory of Oregon-the service for which said troops were created-and that he cause a portion of said regiment to be posted upon the main emigrant road from St. Joseph, on the Missouri, between Fort Hall and the Dalles of the Columbia river, and the remainder thereof to be posted in the Rogue River Valley, on the road from Oregon to California, said troops being necessary for the protection of emigrants and others traveling said road.

Mr. GORMAN. The subject now under the consideration of the House is the resolution offered by the gentleman from Oregon, [Mr. LANE,] in regard to the disposition of certain troops, for the protection of emigrants en route for that Territory. I have but a few observations which I desire to submit to the House, and I shall not accupy the time allowed under the rule. Those remarks I intend to address, as nearly as I can, to the subject-matter under consideration, without any further digression than may seem indispensable to my purpose.

This resolution is introduced for the purpose of obtaining certain information from the President. It also suggests to the President, as I understand it, the propriety of placing upon the Oregon route the mounted rifles. The point to which I wish to direct the attention of the House is this: that under the law creating that regiment, the mounted rifles were raised for the Oregon service; they were to be put upon that service, and for the identical purpose proposed to be accomplished by the gentleman from Oregon, in his resolution. The

Secretary of War, in his last annual report, makes the following allusion to the subject; he says, speaking of the force already sent out to Oregon:

"This force is deemed entirely inadequate for the protection of the inhabitants, particularly of Oregon. The Governor of that Territory has represented this fact, and has urged an increase of the force stationed within it. The means now at the disposal of the Department do not enable it to comply with this demand."

The Governor here alluded to, is the honorable gentleman now representing that Territory. The Secretary of War proceeds:

"In my last annual report I recommended the creation of a new regiment of mounted men. The withdrawal of the regiment of mounted riflemen from the Pacific has, to some extent, diminished the necessity of creating an additional regiment of that description of force, as that country is not peculiarly adapted to cavalry, and its place inay well be supplied by infantry."

Now, it is in reference to that recommendation, and to the subject-matter of the resolution, to which I would ask the attention of the House. The Secretary of War will excuse me if I differ from him in relation to that recommendation, for no gentleman upon this floor has a higher regard for him, as a gentleman and a man, than I have. But the idea of a recommendation to this Congress to substitute infantry for mounted troops upon the frontier service, is so anomalous in its character, and so much in conflict with all military experience, that it struck me at first blush as the most remarkable recommendation I ever heard. The idea of using infantry in preference to mounted troops on the exposed frontier, against Indians marauding to and fro, committing depredations at one point to-day, and at another point forty miles distant to-morrow, does seem to me to be a most remarkable recommendation.

But, sir, what was the object of raising this rifle regiment? I say to the House, that the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. LANE] has stated it cor rectly. This rifle regiment had its origin in the recommendation of the President of the United States to the Twenty-ninth Congress. That recommendation will be found in the Congressional Globe for the first Session of the Twenty-ninth Congress. . The President said:

"For the protection of emigrants, while on their way to Oregon, against the attacks of the Indian tribes occupying the country through which they pass, I recommend that a suitable number of stockades and block-house forts be erected along the usual route between our frontier settlements on the Missouri and the Rocky Mountains; and that an adequate force of mounted riflemen be raised to guard and protect them on their journey."

That recommendation of the President of the United States, made at the commencement of the Twenty-ninth Congress, brought the subject up for consideration before the Committee on Military Affairs. It will be found, by reference to page 726 of the same Congressional Globe, that the subject was debated, and that the very point made by every individual who participated in that debate was, that these troops were to be a guard for emigrants going to Oregon. No member upon this floor, who looks into the history of the law by which this mounted regiment was created, can come to any other conclusion-first, from the recommendation of the President; and secondly, from the debate upon the subject-than that the regiment was raised for that service, and for that alone.

Mr. Benton, in the Senate, made a speech on the subject-which will be found in the Congressional Globe-in which he took this same view; and Mr. Gordon made a speech in this House, in which he also took the same view.

Mr. Gordon, in his speech, said:

"Now, in the opinion of the President, it is necessary that, in this particular service, there should be a particular force-a force of mounted riflemen; and that the ordinary infantry force of the country would not answer the purpose. What is the object of establishing these block-house forts, and stockades, and organizing this force of mounted rifle men? It is not only to protect emigrants on their way to Oregon, but to encourage their emigration thither. Ånd unless we are prepared to abandon, not only the assertion of our claims, but our claims themselves, to Oregon, and to present ourselves in opposition to the President, we are bound to carry out his recommendation, and, as I think, to establish this force in that region of the country." And again:

the subject, in either end of the Capitol, who took any other view than that this mounted regiment was designed for the protection of emigrants to Oregon. The President, or the Secretary of War under his advice and counsel, has ordered the mounted riflemen from the Pacific border, and left but few, if any, troops on that long and exposed Indian frontier, and these troops are not mounted. This force are troops that are stationed at certain points along other routes, and this route proposed to be protected by this mounted rifle regiment is now defenceless.

Mr. EVANS, (interrupting.) I wish to ask the gentleman if I am to understand him to say that President Taylor, or President Fillmore, withdrew that mounted regiment?

Mr. GORMAN. Yes, sir, I do say so. Mr. EVANS. My impression is-and I was here at the time-that they were withdrawn by President Polk.

Mr. GORMAN. Well, the mounted regiment was withdrawn

Mr. LANE, (interrupting.) If the gentleman will allow me I will put this matter straight. I pledge my word, that the gentleman from Maryland has got this thing wrong in his head. The regiment was ordered to Oregon in 1849, and arrived there in the fall of that year; they remained there until the spring of 1851, when they were ordered out of Oregon by the then Administration. gentlemen from Texas (Mr. HOWARD] fell into a That is the true history of this regiment. The great mistake yesterday, when he said that the regiment had been ordered from California and not Oregon. That regiment never was in California. Mr. EVANS. I did not say that it was. Mr. LANE. No; but the gentleman from Texas did.

Mr. GORMAN. I had supposed that it was done under the administration of President Taylor, but I care not under whose administration it was done-whether under that of President Polk, Taylor, or of Mr. Fillmore. I do not, upon this occasion, intend, by any means, to attack the administration either of President Taylor or of Mr. Fillmore. My object is to get at the point, whether the law originally passed did not intend the service of the mounted riflemen, for this Oregon route. If so, I ask, has not the Government, in ordering that force from the Territory, gone in direct opposition to the intention of the law? That is the point. It is the privilege, under the law, of the President of the United States to order troops to whatever positions he pleases; but the idea of taking mounted men from the frontier of Oregona mountainous country, and that portion which is not mountainous being a large part of it prairiethe idea of following Indians who almost invariably travel on horseback, with infantry, carrying their muskets, rifles, cartouche-boxes, and provisions, is certainly the most novel recommendation I ever heard in my life. I know of no man in this country-there is none in this broad land, save, perhaps, one man, and that is the gallant Commander-in-Chief of the Army-to whose opinion in relation to the protection of the country and its frontier, I would pay more deference than to that of the gallant Representative of Oregon. He has given you a history of that country, and many details of the Indian depredations.

Sir, a few commanders such as he is, would soon rid this country from Indian depredations upon that frontier. And when his opinions and recommendations come in conflict with those of the Secretary of War-I care not how well the Secretary may be posted up in the military affairs of the United States-his recommendation would not weigh much with me in comparison with that of the man whom I know marks out his designs with judgment and skill, and executes them with a dexterity and promptness not surpassed, if equaled, by any other man who ever drew a sword or stood before an enemy. I say, when I

come to see the recommendation of that man, feel that I am safe to follow it-a man, of whom, I can say to the country and the world, that in the hour of peril and danger, he sees at a glance the weak points of the enemy and his own forceand avails himself of the advantage instantly. He then goes into the contest with an eye that never blinks and a heart that never falters, combined Iwith a love of country and a patriotism that has no superior in this broad land; when I come to There was not an individual who spoke upon hear him recommend that a regiment of mounted

"Now, for the purpose of protecting emigrants on their way to Oregon, and of encouraging their going there, I am in favor of having one regiment of riflemen mounted, in whole or in part, at the discretion of the President, for this peculiar service, between the Missouri and the Rocky Mountains, as well as for the purpose of keeping the Indians in check, and preventing hostilities on their part against our frontier settlers."

[ocr errors][merged small]

PUBLISHED AT WASHINGTON, BY JOHN C. RIVES.-TERMS $3 FOR THIS SESSION.

32D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION.

rifleman shall be stationed upon that frontier, be cause they are needed there; when I hear him in behalf of the woman and children upon that frontier; when I hear him recount the dangers to the emigrant and the difficulties in getting to that country; all these, in connection with his character, not only as a military man and as a prompt executioner of his designs, but as a man who speaks with judgment and reason upon this question, I am well satisfied that the opinions and judgment of such a man ought to be deferred to, especially after he has traveled over that country,|| and therefore can speak from personal observation.

The question is, whether the vote on the adoption of this resolution shall be reconsidered. This resolution, as I understand it, is to request the President to order a portion of the rifle regiment to be posted upon the emigrant route, from St. Joseph, Missouri, between Fort Hall and the Dalles of the Columbia river; and the remaining portion to be posted in the Rouge River Valley.

Now, I am not going to question the right of this House to direct the President in this matter. I am not going to contend that the President has not the disposition of the troops. I take it that this resolution will not interfere with the powers or the rights of the President, whatever they may be. I think it very clear, that if the resolution is adopted, the President will not consider it in the light of an instruction or as an order. At least, he ought not so to regard it; and if he does, it will not be in accordance with the understanding of this House; not in accordance with the intentions of the mover of the resolution.'

While I am upon the floor, I will say that I believe we ought to raise another regiment. In the last Congress I voted against raising that regiment, but I have since seen the necessity of it. The present regiment was ordered to the frontier of Texas, and we must have a force in Texas. We must have a force in California and New Mexico, and that force must be a mounted one. I must, however, be allowed to differ, perhaps, with the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. LANE] in one thing. That force, in my opinion, should be a regular one. Volunteer forces invariably cost double the amount, and are not any more efficient than regular troops. They may do very well in a charge, or in an attack, but I believe that economy will dictate that we should have regular troops, and mounted too, upon the frontiers of California and Oregon. They have been ordered, as it is said, and as I know, to Texas; and there is no doubt that the frontier of Texas needs their protection. There is no doubt that their protection is needed at Eagle Pass, and in the vicinity of Santa Fe. Correspondence, which I have lately received from one of the judges of that Territory, states that murders are daily; that the Indians are committing frequent depredations upon the property and persons of the emigrants and travelers, and upon passengers from village to village. Various communications, which I have received from the vicinity of Eagle Pass, state that there have been frequent and violent depredations committed in the district represented by my honorable friend from Texas, [Mr. HOWARD.] They need protection. The Government, however, have seen fit to withhold from the Oregon route the troops which were raised for the Oregon service. That this regiment was raised for that purpose, and for that alone, the petitions presented previous to the passage of the law raising the regiment, show. The title of the bill shows the fact, that it was raised for that purpose; and whether this order for their removal comes from the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, from the Secretary of War, or from whatever source it comes, I say that it was in opposition to the spirit of the law which created this regiment.

But the objection urged by gentlemen to this resolution is, that it is directory to the President. Now, if it is read as I think it ought to be read, it is not directory in its character. As I understand it, it simply requests the President to cause this thing to be done. And if I am right in this position, the resolution ought to pass. If I am

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1852.

right in my assertion that this regiment was raised for the purpose of serving in Oregon, and it has been ordered to be removed to another part of the country, I say that the resolution ought to pass. If we had assurance, however, which could be relied on, that another regiment could be raised, I perhaps should not insist on that regiment being directed to take its position upon the routes to Oregon. Another regiment, in my opinion, ought to be raised. This bugbear which has been perpetually crying out against an increase of the Army, has hitherto prevented our raising another regiment. But we know that the frontier of California has been exposed to frequent attacks and depredations by the Indians. Our frontiers have, during the last year, been left so much exposed, that I may say hundreds of men women and children-emigrants not only to Oregon, but to New Mexico and California-mail carriers and officers of your Government, have been robbed and murdered; and yet, in the face of all these facts, there is a disposition here to withdraw all the troops from the whole Pacific frontier. How is this whole frontier to be protected against the depredations of the Indians since the withdrawal of all the troops from that frontier, exposed as it is for three thousand miles? Why, the idea that, in a Government like ours, the Secretary of War should recommend to Congress to dispense with the cavalry of the country and to substitute infantry, with a large and almost boundless extent of frontier such as we have, is so anomalous in its character, that it needs only to be stated to be

seen.

Mr. HAVEN. I desire to make but a suggestion, and it is for the purpose of calling the attention of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GORMAN] to the fact, that he seems to be doing some injustice to the recommendation of the Secretary of War. Now, as I read the report of the Secretary of War, and as I understand his views expressed in his report made to the President at the commencement of the present session, he entertains the same views precisely as have been expressed by the honorable gentleman [Mr. LANE] who introduced the resolution, in reference to the service of this mounted regiment, and also the same views which the honorable gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GORMAN] entertains. In fact, he says the regiment of mounted rifles is necessay for the purpose of protecting our frontier, and keeping our treaty stipulations with Mexico. He insists that this kind of troops are the only efficient force for preventing these Indian incursions. But in looking over the whole field, he seems to regard the frontier of Texas as in more immediate danger than either Oregon or California. If my friend from

Indiana will allow me, I will read a brief extract from the commencement of that report.

Mr. GORMAN. If the gentleman will allow me to read first, he may then read as much as he pleases.

Mr. HAVEN. I only desire to read in regard to this single point.

Mr. GORMAN. The gentleman will find that the Commander-in-Chief, General Scott, and the Secretary of War, differ upon this subject.

Mr. HAVEN. I am speaking now with reference to the harmony of views entertained by the Secretary of War, by the gallant and honorable gentleman from Oregon, and by the gentleman who now occupies the floor from Indiana, [Mr. GORMAN.]

The Secretary says:

"As infantry is of but little use in a service which consists principally in pursuing small parties, who are always mounted, I recommended in my last report the raising of an additional mounted regiment, equipped with special referCнce to this service. Congress not having adopted this recommendation, all that remained for the Department to do was to make such a disposition of the force at his disposal as would most effectually protect our own territory, and fulfill our treaty obligations with Mexico. Accordingly, prompt measures were taken to concentrate on the confines of Texas and New Mexico as many of the troops adapted to this service as could be spared from other quarters." Then, again, he says:

"The Indians in California and Oregon having always been of an unwarlike character, and disposed to cultivate

NEW SERIES.....No. 33.

the good will of the whites, it was thought that the services of the regiment of mounted riflemen might be dispensed with on the Pacific. It was therefore ordered to Texas. Brevet Major General Smith, its commander, was put in command of the eighth military department, and Brevet Major General Hitchcock was ordered to succeed him in the command of the Pacific division."

Again, he says:

"It would not be safe, however, to rely on any pacific

policy, however wise and just, for the protection of our

fellow citizens in that remote region. Since the withdrawal of the regiment of mounted riflemen, the military force on the Pacific is extremely small. By the returns of the Adjutaut General, appended to the report of the General in Chief, it appears that the entire force stationed on the Pacific aimounted, at the last return, to only seven hundred and thirty-six men. This force is deemed entirely inadequate for the protection of the inhabitants, particularly of Oregon. The Governor of that Territory has represented this fact, and has urged an increease of the force stationed within it. The means now at the disposal of the Department do not enable it to comply with this demand."

Now, whatever may have been his reasons for sending this regiment from Oregon, he takes precisely the same views of the matter as the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from Oregon. But he says that there is no very eminent dangers to be apprehended from the Indians in Oregon. From the habits and condition of those Indians, they are not warlike in their character, and it is not necessary to have these mounted riflemen to pursue these small parties, to ride them down, as the gentleman says. Or it is not as necessary to have them there as it is upon the frontier of Texas. I do not desire to detain the House, I only make this suggestion, that there is a harmony of views in reference to this subject, between the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from Oregon and the Secretary of War.

Mr. GORMAN. The clause to which the gentleman has referred, is to be found in the report of had said to the last Congress, he goes on to say: the Secretary of War. After repeating what he

"In my last annual report I recommended the creation of a new regiment of mounted men. The withdrawal of the regiment of mounted riflemen from the Pacific has, to some extent, diminished the necessity of creating an additional regiment of that description of torce, as that country is not peculiarly adapted to cavalry, and its place may well be supplied by infantry. Nevertheless, by the report of the General-in Chief, it will be seen that he considers not only this additional regiment of cavalry, but also an increase in the rank and file of the infantry and artillery as indispensably necessary. While I feel some hesitation in urging upon Congress any addition to the force on the frontier, where the support of troops is attended with such enormous expense, I cannot but acknowledge the force of his remarks and the weight that is due to his recommendation. I hope, therefore, that the matter will be submitted to Congress."

Does he understand the Secretary of War to come to the conclusion to which he alludes? If so, he is mistaken. The Secretary of War is re

capitulating what he has said before.

Follow the Secretary of War. He says:

"In my last annual report I recommended the creation of a new regiment of mounted men. The withdrawal of the regiment of mounted riflemen from the Pacific has, to some extent, diminished the necessity of creating an additional regiment of that description of force, as that country is not peculiarly adapted to cavalry, and its place may well be supplied by infantry."

And he goes on to say, and you will see that he differs from the Commander-in-Chief:

"Nevertheless, by the report of the General-in-Chief, [Gen. Scott,] it will be seen that he considers not only this additional regiment of cavalry, but also an increase in the rank and file of the infantry and artillery, as indispensably necessary."

The Secretary of War further says:

"While I feel some hesitation in urging upon Congress any addition to the force on the frontier, where the support of the troops is attended with such enormous expense, I cannot but acknowledge the force of his remarks and the weight that is due to his recommendation. I hope, therefore, that the matter will be submitted to Congress."

Thus it will be seen that General Scott wishes another cavalry regiment, and the Secretary of War hopes the matter will be submitted to Congress. He differs from General Scott, and says that infantry can be used there, and that cavalry is not fitted for that service. And why? He has shown that such are his opinions by withdrawing the mounted rifles; and in doing so, he has perpetrated an act which I regard to be in violation of the spirit of the law, as clearly indicated in the title of the law. It is the point to which I am

directing the attention of the House, that the withdrawal of those troops from Oregon is wrong. The remark has force as made by the gentleman from Oregon, in reference to the settlements in Texas, that Texas is better capable of taking care of themselves than those upon the frontiers of Oregon and California. The frontiers of Texas have never been incapable of defending themselves. They need this force, however, to avoid the necessity of defending themselves. It is the duty of the Government to defend them. The people of Texas are quite as warlike-if I may be allowed the expression-as the Indians themselves; and they make better Indian fighters than are the Indians themselves. One Texan regiment can whip two or three Indian regiments.. I heard a distinguished gentleman from Texas, a few days since, say they could outrun them, whip them, and fight them two to one at any time and under any circumstances. If the President of the United States had taken into consideration the population of Texas, their character, their ability, and willing disposition to defend themselves, he would have found an additional reason for keeping that regiment where the Congress of the United States intended it to be kept. I insist that the act of the Secretary of War in withdrawing those troops is in violation of the spirit of the law, and in derogation of the intention of Congress; and it is a violation, too, of the principles of humanity. The cause of humanity demands that these troops should be kept upon the route of the emigrants to Oregon. You have thousands and thousands of people going over the plains this year. Thousands passed over them last year; and the papers of the whole country are full of accounts of Indian depredations, murders, and robberies of every character and kind. But, sir, in the face of all that, in the face of the preamble of the law, and in the face of the intention of this House, the Secretary of War has seen proper to withdraw those troops from the point where it was intended that they should be stationed.

Mr. HAVEN. There is no preamble to the

law.

Mr. GORMAN. When I used the word preamble, I intended the word title. I did not intend to elaborate this matter by any means. I wished only to speak upon a point which struck me as being important, and having investigated that, I only intended to say to the House, that the proposition of the Secretary of War in recommending infantry upon the frontier instead of cavalry, is so anomalous-with all due respect to that highly honorable gentleman, for whom I have great regard that I could not refrain from making the remarks which I have made.

Mr. BROOKS. I did not intend to make any remarks upon this resolution, because I did not suppose, that after the discussion on yesterday, that it would be pressed to a vote, but would be materially modified or utterly withdrawn by its mover. I see, however, by the argument of the honorable gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. GoRMAN, who has just taken his seat, that it is probably his intention, and as I apprehend, the intention of others also, to force us to a vote upon this resolution just as it is; and therefore it becomes necessary to reply to his remarks, and to urge the reasons why such a resolution should not pass at all, but be reconsidered at once, and then voted down.

In the first place, this resolution contemplates taking from the Executive power of the country the control of the Army of the United States.

Mr. GORMAN. If the gentleman will allow me, I will say I have no such intention. I have no objection to vote to so amend the resolution as to preclude the idea the gentleman seems disposed to defend.

Mr. BROOKS. I am happy to hear it, but I must take the resolution as it stands until it is modified by the mover. It does not propose to take it in legitimate form, but

Mr. LANE, (interposing.) I should like to have the unanimous consent of the House, to amend the resolution at this stage-though I do not know as it is competent to do so, upon the motion to reconsider the vote by which it was passed by inserting the term request in its proper place, in connection with the other terms in the resolution, so that the whole resolution shall be merely a request, and not a command. If that

tion to the resolution. I stated on yesterday that
I was anxious to have it so modified.

Mr. BROOKS. I hope that at the proper time
the gentleman will have an opportunity to amend
the resolution. Lest it may not be modified,
however, to satisfy me hereafter, I must take the
resolution as it stands now, comment upon it as
I find it once passed by the House, express my
objections to it, and, after that, I intend to ani-
madvert upon some of the observations and princi-
ples laid down by the honorable gentleman from
Indiana, [Mr. GORMAN.]

The resolution, as it stands, Mr. Chairman, would take from the President of the United States, who is, by the Constitution, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, and invest the House of Representatives alone with that high authority. We should have, not one constitutional Commander-in-Chief, but two hundred and thirty-odd Commanders-in-Chief, all honorable members of the House, by no action of Congress, be it remembered, but by the sole action of this House, assuming powers against the Constitution, and without even the coöperation of the Senate. The singular spectacle would be presented of the House alone undertaking the direction of the Army, in defiance of two of the coördinate branches of the Government, whose legislative authority, separately and distinctly, is quite equal to any which the House has or can exercise under the Constitution of the United States. Nay, the resolution of the honorable gentleman from Oregon is not only thus utterly objectionable in principle, but, if possible, yet more objectionable in its details, for he asks the House not only to take from the President the general direction of the army, but to go into details, and to station a portion of that army at three several and distinct points, between the old western frontier and the frontier of Oregon, all of which he specifically names in his resolution. I am quite convinced, then, that when the honorable gentleman from Oregon further reflects upon the tendencies of his resolution, upon its high assumption of authority, upon its utter impropriety, upon its subversion of the great principle which guided our constitutional fathers in their careful division of powers among the three branches of the Government, and upon its utter powerlessness, too, if he should persist in calling upon the House to pass it, and could obtain sufficient votes, he will not press the resolution to a vote, but will withdraw it, or suffer it to be laid upon the table. True, it may be in the power of this House to resolve, that it will have the sole control of the sword of the country, but it is a resolve against and in despite of, the Constitution, altogether beyond its legitimate authority, and a resolve which it can never maintain, and which, therefore, no member should ever try to pass. The House of Representatives has no sole authority whatsoever over the Army. Congress may, in concert with the Executive branch of the Government, create an army, and the hold the House has over it, is over the supplies, over the public purse. The disposition of the Army, when legislation has done with it, is altogether in the Executive, under the limitation of the Constitution. Congress holds the purse, the Executive has the sword. The powers of the two are com plete and distinct in their respective constitutional spheres, and this is the only case, I will venture to say, in which the House has ever before attempted, by a resolution confined to its own body, not only to dispose of the Army, but to fix its stations or encampments in particuliar spots. I will not, however, press that point further, because the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. LANE] has manifested a proper disposition at least to modify the resolution, in which the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GORMAN] concurs.

The point I now propose to discuss briefly, is the necessity of the changes which have taken place in the Army of the United States, by the authority of the Executive of the United States. The great and original difficulty lies in the Army being too small for the protection of this now vastly extended country, with, if I may be allowed so to speak, its inner and its outer frontiers-its frontier on the Atlantic and Pacific, on Canada, the Provinces, in Mexico; and its inner frontier, embracing numerous and powerful tribes of savages. An Army which was once, perhaps, sufficiently large for guarding the coasts of the United States and

could be done, certainly there could be no objec-Canada, is now utterly inadequate for the

[ocr errors]

tion of the extended frontiers of the United States, when they have gone beyond the Rocky Moun ains, embraced tribes of savages, whose names even are yet scarcely known to us, and occupied the extensive coasts of Oregon and California. We have doubled our country, quadrupled the difficult and dangerous duties of the Army, but yet the Army remains as it was, and by some it is expected to be omnipresent, because hitherto it has been omnipotent almost everywhere.

A still greater difficulty, however, arises from the action of the House of Representatives of the United States during the last session of Congress. The Executive, through the Secretary of War, submitted his estimates to the House of Representatives, and the action of the House was such as to curtail those estimates one half. Those estimates were cut down over $2,000,000 by the House, and whatever disorder and trouble there has been in California, in Oregon, or in Texas, or elsewhere, the Executive is not responsible for it, for it is the Congress of the United States that has deprived the President of the power to properly garrison the different sections of this vast and widely extended frontier. It was impossible for the Executive of the United States to do the justice to Oregon or to California that the gentleman from Oregon now demands, because the House of Representatives deprived him of the means, and even intimated to him, that it was unnecessary to garrison Oregon and California at all. If the honorable gentleman will refer to the discussion upon the Army estimates, in the House of Representatives last year, it will be found that the great argument for the curtailment of the estimates from $4,000,000 to $2,000,000, was, that Oregon and California needed no soldiers; that the people there were fully capable of protecting themselves, and that the Indians of Oregon and California were not of a warlike character. The further argument was, that the expense of maintaining troops there was so enormous, and so much beyond that of supporting them upon the Atlantic States, and on the old western frontier, that it was the duty of the Executive to withdraw the troops which had been stationed in Oregon and California, and restore them to the frontier of Texas, or transport them to the Atlantic borders. Upon these arguments the House of Representatives justified itself in curtailing the estimates of the Executive from $4,000,000 to $2,000,000; and this was the only good reason gentlemen had for doing what they did altogether in the dark. This was the argument made upon different sides of the House. In one quarter it was made by gentlemen opposed to all armies whatever-by peace men. In other quarters, without reference to parties, it was justified upon the ground that it cost so much for the Quartermaster's department in Oregon and California, that the Army should not, and must not be kept there. The expenses of provision, and of supporting and maintaining troops there was so great, we were told, that they considered it the duty of the Executive to remove the great body of the military from that distant and expensive frontier to the old frontier of the country, or, at least, to take them to the Atlantic coast. The House acted upon these plausible arguments, and the Congressional Globe will show that the spirit of that argument prevailed through all the discussion. The House having done all this, and taken the responsibility, now let not honorable members shirk off that responsibility upon the Executive, but share it; for he not only fol lowed their advice, but they compelled him to fol low it by crippling him of all power or means to disobey it.

The gentleman from Indiana in the course of his remarks, bestowed a brilliant eulogium upon the military services of the honorable Delegate from Oregon, [Mr. LANE,] leaving an inference, as it seemed to me, that when he spoke on military matters, all others should obey. I would not, if I could, rob him of one of his well-deserved military laurels. Indeed I heartily concur in most of the remarks of the honorable gentleman. But the gentleman from Oregon, I apprehend, gallant as he is, would find himself entirely unable to do more than the Executive or the Secretary of War has done, if Congress did not vest him with the necessary means to provide for garrisoning his own Territory and the State of California. Sure I am, if the honorable Delegate from Oregon, innothing more stead of being only a Delegate, had been actual

1

than has been done, if Congress had blindly cut down his quartermaster's estimates $2,000,000 at a swoop. If there be any doubt of this, let the honorable gentleman from Indiana give vitality to his eulogies, and bring to bear the power of his party to place the Delegate from Oregon in the position of the Executive of the United States; and if he is placed in that condition, I venture to say, without the power of the purse, without supplies on the part of this House, he could do no more than the present Executive has done for the protection of Oregon and California. There is another argument of the gentleman from Indiana on which I wish to have a word or two, and that is, this rifle regiment was created for the especial benefit of Oregon. I have no doubt in the early intention of the creation of that regiment it was designed for Oregon, or the frontier of Oregon, but I have yet to learn that any regiment of this country, any portion of the Army of the United States, however it may have been dedicated in its original creation, belongs to Oregon, or California, or Texas, or to Maine, Loui- || siana, or Pennsylvania, or to any people but the people of the United States. It is a new doctrine, now for the first time introduced here, that a regiment created at the start for a particular purpose, especially when, as in this case, the House deprived the Executive of the power to carry out the original purpose, that such regiment is dedicated forever to a particular Territory or State, and cannot be taken wheresoever and whithersoever it may be the duty of the Executive to take it. The Army belongs to the whole United States, and wherever its services are most wanted, it must be stationed, and of all that the Executive power is the proper judge.

Now, in the great body of the remarks of the gentleman from Oregon, which go to show the necessity of protecting Oregon and California, and the emigrants on their way there, I heartily concur. I have a great respect for his military experience, and am willing to be guided by it, whenever he will provide the men, money, and means. Oregon must be defended. The route from Missouri or Iowa must be made free, easy, and safe. Nobody will go further with him than I will on all these points. But he has not taken the wise and proper steps to carry out the purpose of his remarks. He should go before the Military Committee of this House; he should lay his complaints before the Committee of Ways and Means; he should then address the House, and enforce upon them the necessity of increasing the Army and increasing its expenditures, to maintain the Army at the costly points where he desires to station it. He should enforce upon Congress the necessity of providing better for the transportation of the subsistence for the troops. After he has convinced the committees of the House, he should then come before the House with his arguments that he submitted yesterday upon the passage of this resolution, and if the House respected them as I do, he could then at that more appropriate time carry all before him. Hercules in the White House cannot help him. The only useful Hercu

les is in these members here.

I forbear, Mr. Speaker, now from any further remarks upon the original resolution-not because I do not object to it in any and every form, except as it is to go to a committee, or is limited to an inquiry. I object to it for the reasons I have stated, but whenever the gentleman will give it the proper form and proper direction-the legitimate and usual direction-he shall have my hearty concurrence in bringing about all he de

sires.

Mr. CARTTER. I do not propose to trouble the House for the few minutes I shall occupy their time, with a discussion of the propriety of transferring a regiment of mounted riflemen from one frontier of the Republic to another. I take it for granted, that so far as that branch of the service is concerned, no gentleman upon this floor can be better enlightened upon the subject than the honorable mover of this resolution. His position to the western territories, his military experience in connection with the service, constitute, for all purposes, in my judgment, the law of my conclusion upon that subject. I propose to trouble the House with a protest simply against the extraordinary doctrine promulged by the honorable gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. BAYLY,] on yesterday, and reëchoed by the honorable member

from New York [Mr. BROOKS] to-day. It was but a few days since that this House had under consideration the Mexican indemnity bill. If I recollect right, the honorable gentleman from Virginia then rose in his place and solemnly protested against the interference of this body in the disposition of the money that it should appropriate for the liquidation of the debt under that treaty, and assumed then, that the expenditure was the subject solely of Executive discretion. The same gentleman, upon this bill, pursuing the same line of argument, assumes, and gravely urges, that the disposition of the Army is the subject solely of Executive direction and discretion. Now, I conceive, if this Executive tendency of thought, Executive tendency of action, in this body, shall be continued to be pursued until we are subsidized to the thought and action, there will be nothing left but an Executive. The proposition, in connection with the money, puts the purse into his hands. The proposition in connection with the sword here, puts the sword into his hands: and with the Treasury and the Sword united in the Executive, you have an end of the independence of this body. This is what I understood to be a chapter in Federalism when I was learning the A B C of politics, without claiming to have got out of them yet. These are two of the cheif attributes of monarchy. And you carry out the doctrine that the President has the sole power of disposing of the defensive force of this Union, and that he has the power of appropriating, under his discretion, the money as accorded by this body, and there is an end of your legislative power. I deny that the Executive has any right to transfer a regiment created for the defence of any given frontier of this Republic to another frontier. I deny that he has any right under the Constitution to withdraw it from the service indicated in its creation. It is true, he is Commander-in-Chief of the Army. The Constitution says so. What does it mean?

It

means that he is the drill officer of your forces. It means upon the field of battle as the war-making power-as the defensive power of the Union. It means that when you have created a military force, it is at his disposition; that he has the right to mount the cockade and command it; and that is all it means. But the moment you give to him the power of stripping one frontier of its defensive force and transferring it to another, you as sign to the Executive the legislative protecting power of this body. You effectually subject the legislative sovereignty of the country to the Executive sovereignty. Why, if he may, under his sole discretion, withdraw forces specifically directed by law to be employed upon an unguarded frontier of the Republic, you throw the whole safety of the empire into a single man's hands; you repose the entire safety of the Republic in a single man's judgment; and when you superadd the other doctrine, that he has a right to manage the funds of the country as he sees fit, independent of the action of this body, you put into his hands the means of executing that purpose. Now, sir, I deny both propositions. I deny that we have not the power to determine that we will make a defence subject to law. When we make that defence, when we raise the force for it, I deny any higher or further power to the Executive than the power of commanding the force at the place where, and the time when, you order him in the law. With the detailed disposition of the Army he does hold the sovereign command, but that disposition must be subordinate to and revolved within the legislative purpose declared in creating the force, and disposing the point of de

fence. I have never before heard such an alarm

knows, in the item of expenditure. But again: he says it is the fault of Congress in attempting to retrench it. We did not attempt to retrench it; but one sentiment entered into the reduction of the Quartermaster's department, to which the gentleman alludes, in the last Congress. The reason why $2,000,000 was taken out of the Quartermaster's appropriation for the Army, as the gentleman from New York will well recollect, was, that for some mysterious, unprecedented reason, it was ascertained that that Department had swelled up its appropriation from $1,500,000 to $5,000,000. That was the reason. It was ascertained furthermore, in following the detail of that Department, that the moneys appropriated by the Federal Government were passed through one contractor to another, to another and another and another, and each one levying upon this appropriation the impost of a highwayman.

[Here a message was received from the Senate by the hands of ASBURY DICKINS, Esq., their Secretary.]

Mr. BROOKS. Will the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CARTTER] permit me to interrupt him? I am quite sure whenever he makes a change, he will bring it to a point and make it specific. He has made an allegation against the Quartermaster's department which involves a high officer of the Government of his own party. I am very desirous he should make his charge specific, so that we may know who are these contractors and what are their names.

Mr. CARTTER. I will make it specific; I do not care who it involves, whether my own party or the gentleman's party. God knows the gentleman's party has sins enough in this line to answer for, when they had to bring forward their leader here, with $50,000,000 of appropriations, to accuse Congress of having crippled the service by not giving more; when it is necessary, after an appropriation of $50,000,000 in the last Congress, that you should load down the commencement of this Congress with deficiency bills amounting to $5,000,000 or $6,000,000, and then get up in the sixth and seventh week of the session and complain that this modest Administration-this economic Administration-this honest Administration-this sound Administration-this cheap government Administration-this retrenchment Administration-this reform Administration, [laughter,] cannot go on successfully with the operations of this Government without you stop the ordinary business of legislation for the purpose of shoveling into their insatiate maw millions more. [Laughter.] I say I care not who it strikes; I care not whether it strikes political friend or foe. It is recorded upon the pages of that Department, that it has become the mere tool in the hands of speculators, for the purpose of wasting the public reveThe enormity of the appropriation was so great, made apparently so great at the last Congress, that in a time of profound peace, with no armies for aggressive war, and no necessity for armies for an aggressive war-when the whole world were extending their hands to shake the hand of peace with us, and when our neighbors upon this continent were holding their hands to God to protect themselves against us;-at this time of profound security and unbroken peace, the resources of the Quartermaster's department should run up to $5,000,000, is a thing unheard-of in the history of expenditure. Now, if there is a Democrat in that crowd, I am not a cousin of his. I want that distinctly understood; and the gentleman may take him into a party that will sympathize with him just as quick as he pleases.

nues.

more to say.

I rose simply to protest against the repudiated ing doctrine proclaimed here as the doctrine that doctrine, that the Executive Department has a has just been promulged. The gentleman from control of your money, and that he is entitled to New York [Mr. BROOKS] says in his argument a discretionary control of the sword. I have anthat Congress is to blame for transferring the regi-swered that purpose briefly, and have nothing ment from Oregon to Texas. Did Congress do it? No! It appears the Executive has done it. They did not give the order to march. They did not divert this portion of the Army from that point. But the President rests the necessity for doing it in the defenceless condition of Texas. Now, the honorable Delegate from Oregon, [Mr. LANE,] to whose opinion I yield my own judgment in reference to that matter, with whatever rights I have upon the subject, assumes that your standing Army is large enough. It is large enough for action under the explanation of the Delegate from Oregon. It is large enough, God

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky. It was not my intention to mingle in the debate upon this resolution. I had no desire to say a word in the discussion; but such frequent allusion has been made to the vote of the last Congress, which cut down the appropriations for the Quartermaster's department of the Army below the estimates submitted by that bureau, and such direct reference to those who voted that reduction, as the persons on whose heads should rest all the responsibility for whatever difficulties have occurred upon the frontiers, that I cannot refrain from the declara▾

tion that I am one who so voted-who struck from those estimates, at a single sweep of the pen, two millions of dollars-and I stand here now ready to vindicate the propriety of my course on that occasion.

of whatever country the soldier might be called to defended, how they are to be situated, and with
serve in. We thought that our soldiers in New what force they are to be garrisoned, where the in-
Mexico and California might subsist on beef or fantry is to be used, and where the dragoons and
mutton, smoked, dried, salted, or fresh, as well as rifles are to be sent. These great points being deter-
upon pork, and that it was not indispensable to mined by him, the orders pass to the military de-
the maintenance of our military establishment, partments, and from these to the divisions, thence
that the contracts for army supplies should be made in to brigades, thence to the regiments, and so down
the cities of the Atlantic. Sir, we are in the habit of to the companies. Every man hears the command
making contracts in New York and Boston, which from Washington. Here is the responsibility for
should be made in the West. Some of us thought the plan, that for the execution may rest elsewhere.
that, instead of sanctioning the transportation of The distribution of the troops being fixed, the
pork at $50 per barrel from New York or Boston, Commissary General has the simple duty of pro-
through the west, and thence over the plains to curing the rations-certain supplies fixed by law
New Mexico, we would leave the President to as to quantity and kind, and only liable to be
the judicious exercise of that power, with which changed by an order of the President. These are
he was already invested, and whereby, by a mere to be transported by the order and under the su-
change of the soldiers' meat ration, he could sub-pervision of the Quartermaster General, who, be
sist the force upon the productions of the country
in which the army should be stationed, and so
dispense with such extravagant transportation.

Sir, I can readily understand how the difficulties and expenses of army transportation increased with the extension of the frontiers of the Republic; but I cannot understand, I never have understood why the estimates of the Quartermaster General should go on increasing from year to year in an arithmetical progression, since the frontiers have been so extended. Our number of troops remain the same from year to year; the Commissary General has the same rations to furnish; the Adjutant General the same personnel to wield; the geographical area over which the Army operates is the same. Yet, year by year, the estimates for transportation swell, until this item alone has risen to between $5,000,000 and $6,000,000. Sir, this item of "transportation" in the Quartermaster Gen- Mr. Speaker, I do not make an assault upon eral's estimates, attracted, very naturally, the atten- the administration of the War Department, but tion of such members of this House as desired to when my votes are made the subject of comment keep the Army expenditures within due bounds. here, or elsewhere, I shall and will vindicate their I know that, though we struck down those propriety. They are cast always according to my estimates last session $2,000,000, we are yet judgment of the interests of the people, and withto have a contest over the items. They are to out reference to the demands of party. They may be brought forward again in a "deficiency bill," be wrong, but I can always communicate the reaand the estimates of the Executive bureaus are to sons which operated upon me to give them. It be enforced through that instrumentality, if Con- was unnecessary to cast any reflection upon those gress will submit to it. Sir, the Executive depart- who voted with me upon the occasion referred to, ment-the Estimating department of this Goven- und for one, I do not mean to permit any text to ment-is not an unresisting subject under the knife be taken in this way, without accompanying it of the economist. It will require all the nerve of with a proper commentary. Let me say, that the the boldest legislator to teach gentlemen at the other idea is preposterous, that the difficulties upon the end of the avenue, that when Congress reduces the frontiers, or in the administration of the War Deestimates they are to learn to keep the expendi-partment, have arisen from the vote referred to. tures within the sum allowed to them. It has so frequently been the case that the Executive bureaus have successfully disregarded the expressed will of Congress, that I am prepared to see a deficiency bill enter this Hall, restoring the estimates refused last March by Congress, and accompanied by the declaration that the appropriation allowed for the whole year has been expended in the first six months. If I remember aright, such a result was predicted when Congress refused the estimates to the Quartermaster General. It was replied to that prediction, that the representatives of the people would teach the lesson of obedience to their will by making an example of the officer who should dare to disobey the will of Congress, when clearly and unequivocally expressed. The report of the "deficiency bill," covering the same estimes so refused, will bring Congress to the test proposed. We shall see in a few days whether this body has sunk to the level of a mere office in which to register Executive edicts-whether the subalterns of the Army in possession of bureaus are superior to the Congress.bility be attributed to Congress? No, sir; we have If I can obtain the floor on the hearing of this" deficiency bill," by which this deficit of two millions is proposed to be restored to the Quartermaster General's bureau of the War Department, I shall avail myself of that occasion to review the vote to which reference has been made, as well to vindicate its correctness, when cast, as to show conclusively the high obligation which rests upon Congress to adhere to it, "at every hazard and to the last extremity."

I have not looked at the history of that debate as it is reported, but I remember that the estimates furnishing rations to the troops were made upon the basis, that the transportation of a barrel of pork to some of our posts in New Mexico was to cost some $50! We saw in those estimates, that the article of wood, for fuel, in New Mexico was to cost some $12 or $14 per cord. To justify this, it was said the wood had to be packed some thirty or thirty-five miles. Why was this? Because the troops were stationed in the towns and not in the Indian country. We thought it would be better to move the soldiers to the wood, than to bring the wood to the soldiers, at the price estimated for. Think of it, sir: a barrel of pickled pork sent from the city of New York to Santa Fé, at a cost of $50 for the mere transportation!! We know enough of the character of New Mexico and California to be apprised of the fact, that in those countries, beef cattle and sheep were pastured, and that the inhabitants subsisted upon this kind of meat. We know that, by existing law, the President of the United States could substitute one ingredient for another in the ration of the soldier, in order, by such change, to adapt the ration to the capacities

The estimates upon which that vote was given
were made for the year ending 30th June, 1852.
Six months of that fiscal year have not yet expired.
The allowance for the whole year has surely been
sufficient for the first six months. It cannot be,
then, that frontier difficulties which transpired six
months ago, were caused by a supposed deficit
which will appear six months hence! Look to
the Quartermaster's estimates for the present year,
and to his expenditures for the first six months.
Let us see the details, and place your finger upon
the retrenchment that has occurred, out of which
the difficulties on the frontier have originated, or
to which, in any degree, they can be traced. I
dare to say, no man here can specify such item.
I dare to say, that the examination will prove that
the expenditures have been made according to the
estimates, and that the calculation has been in-
dulged to cover the deficit of the next six months
by a new appropriation. If this shall appear,
with what propriety can the fault or the responsi-
enough sins to answer for, without charging those
upon us of which we are innocent. I do not enter
upon the averment that any fault has been com-
mitted that the difficulties upon the frontiers
could have been avoided; but if there is any fault
it originates from the manner in which the troops
have been posted, not from the manner in which
they have been supplied, when posted.

[ocr errors]

The troops of the Army are posted by the Com-
manding General of the Army. The duties of the
Quartermaster General, Adjutant General, Com-
missary General, are merely ministerial, and are all
under the supervision of the Commanding General.
The republic is divided into so many military de-
partments, and these are subdivided into so many
military divisions, which are made up of brigades,
regiments, and companies. Each has its peculiar
chief, but the arrangement and order of the whole
belong to the Commanding General. At the end of
the quarter the Adjutant General exhibits to his
Chief the returns of the Army. He shows, in a con-
solidated return, the whole personnel of the Army,
the strength of each department, and you may run
back in these returns and find the strength of each
division, brigade, regiment or company, and final-
ly, the exact whereabouts of each man.
see whether an individual has been absent or pres-
ent, sick or well, on duty or off duty-in fine,
how he has been, where he has been, and what
he has been doing. The system descends to the
utmost minutiae, and yet exhibits the condition of
the Army in the most comprehensive form. With
his maps of the country before him, the Command-
ing general arranges the manner in which the lines
are to be occupied, determines what posts are to be

You can

|

sides, has the furnishing and transportation of other things required by service, as arms, horses, &c., &c. These details prove that the Quartermaster General is not censurable if the supplies are costly in any particular locality, and I should not think less of the Quartermaster General if it cost $100 per barrel to carry the pork ration to a military post. I know he has nothing to do with the matfer further than to make an honest contract to have the article transported. The responsibility is all upon the officer who determines the locality of the post-the line to be occupied and to be supplied, and the character of the force to be employed.

When Congress refused the transportation account of the Quartermaster General, at the last session, and reduced the estimates $2,000,000, the essence of that vote was to disapprove of the lines occupied and to suggest, in a legitimate manner, a new disposition and arrangement of the military establishment on the frontiers. It suggested to the President of the United States the propriety of exercising his power to change the rations of the soldier, so as to subsist him from the productions of the country occupied, as far as possible. It suggested to the commander to take his force into the country instead of keeping them in the settlements to take them to the wood, and not to bring the wood to them. I have cause to believe that a change, and a beneficial change, has occurred in the disposition of the troops, whether in consequence of that vote or not, I shall not pretend to say. The idea of occupying the line of the Rio Grande under the pretence of enforcing the treaty of Hidalgo, is a farce. I once before remarked, that you had not enough men on it to post a relief of sentinels of one to every three miles. But more of this hereafter. I arose for the sole purpose of avowing my readiness to vindicate the correctness of my vote at the last session, and to defend myself against implied censure. I desire gentlemen to understand that I, as one of the majority who reduced the estimates of General Jesup, acted from a sense of my duty to the country-that I shall always be ready to vindicate the correctness of the position then assumed, and that if the remarks made here are avant couriers of a deficiency bill designed to bring Congress back to the path of bureau dictation, I shall be quite ready, as a member, to express my views of the new duties we shall owe to ourselves, our dignity, and our country, upon the happening of that event.

With regard to the particular resolution under consideration, I will make a few remarks before I resume my seat. I cannot support the resolution -not that I deny the power of Congress to indicate by legislation where military posts shall be established, and, if the Congress chooses, how the military operations shall be conducted. I distinctly concede, as I maintain, the existence of this power. The Executive is the Commander-in-Chief, and so long as the Army is maintained he has the right to command it; but the Congress has the right to say where it shall be employed when Congress thinks proper to exert such power. But, the question here is not one of power: it is one of expedi ency. The honorable Delegate from Oregon [Mr. LANE] will find by reference to the debates of the Thirty-first Congress, that his predecessor indicated upon this floor, that the mounted rifle corps was not wanted in Oregon, and that the people of that country were entirely competent to their own defence. I think he made the same assertions to many in our private conversations with him. Now, conceding the claim of the honorable Delegate to the service of the mounted rifles in Oregon, surely the same practice which the Polk administration

« AnteriorContinuar »