pursued, to wit: that of sending that regiment where the emergencies of the service required it, would be equally proper under this Administration. That regiment was sent first to Mexico. When that war concluded, a portion of it was sent to Oregon. The former Delegate from Oregon said those troops were not needed in Oregon. Texas required troops to guard her frontier against Indian marauding parties and hostile bands. I suppose it was to meet this emergency, and because of Mr. Thurston's representations, that the rifle regiment was withdrawn from Oregon and sent to the Texas frontier. Mr. DUNHAM. If the gentleman from Kentucky will permit, I will say that, according to my recollection, the Delegate from Oregon to the last Congress said, in substance, that they did not want troops in the actual settlements, but they did desire them on the routes from the States to Oregon. I think there is a distinction. I do not understand the present Delegate from Oregon as requiring troops in the settlements of that Territory. | passed, under which the regiment was organized under it, and so everybody has understood it. Something has been said by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. MARSHALL] about "indelicacy.' Now, if there is indelicacy anywhere, it seems to me that it is on the part of the Executive, in taking this regiment from the Oregon service, for which it was clearly the intention of Congress that it should be applied. Although the law may not positively direct that it shall be so employed, it was raised for that service, and the Executive has diverted it from the position for which Congress intended it. The gentleman asks if such a thing has not been done before? Yes; but that was in a time of emergency, when we were engaged in war, which changed the state of things. Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky. But suppose another emergency should arise which should again require the troops to be withdrawn? Mr. DUNHAM. I do not consider that a case in point. There can no emergency arise which would justify the withdrawal of the troops from any portion of the country, so as to leave it enfrontier of Oregon. Now, can the gentleman tell me what propriety there was in taking that force from the point for which it was raised, and to transfer it to another for which it was not raised, and thus leave the country for whose protection it was created, entirely unprotected? Mr. DUNHAM. I do not propose to detain the House many moments, but really the doctrine advanced by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BAYLY] yesterday, was so strange, so novel, and so important, that I do feel it ought not to pass unnoticed. It was no more nor less than this: that the President of the United States has the right, under all circumstances, to control and dispose of the military and naval forces of the country, uncontrolled by the legislative power. If that doctrine was to be carried out, it would result in precisely this: Congress has the right to declare war; it may raise troops for the purpose of carry-tirely unprotected and exposed as would be the ing on that war; and yet the Executive would have a right to withhold those troops from the destination and purpose for which Congress intended them, and thus neutralise the power which Congress has to declare war, expressly given to it by the Constitution. If this rifle regiment was raised expressly for the Oregon service, and if the Congress of the United States cannot control it so far as to compel those troops to be applied to that service, why the same power which would authorize the Executive to control that one regiment, would enable him to control the Army and Navy in a case where actual war existed by the action of Congress. The clause of the Constitution to which the gentleman from Virginia refers, simply authorizes the President of the United States to take command of the Army and Navy. What does that mean? It does precisely what is done when you give him executive power in civil matters; it makes him the executive officer to carry out and do the will of Congress-the legislative power of the country. You pass a civil law and it is the duty of the President to carry out and execute that law. You declare war against another nation and raise troops expressly for that Mr. MARSHALL. I have not referred to the debates of that session, and shall not be particular as to the exact statement of the former Delegate from Oregon; but, I have conversed with members of the last Congress as to the statement then made, and their recollection as to its purport and substance, concurs with mine. The impression produced upon our minds was, that, from some cause, the troops then in Oregon were not required there. And I suggest that, in the action of the former Delegate will be found the reason of their withdrawal by the Commanding General. Be that as it may, are we prepared, with the limited information we now possess-without any communication with the War Department-without knowledge of the present employment of the rifle regiment or of the necessities of the frontier to which that corps has been ordered-under all the circumstances, are we prepared, absolutely to order the Secretary of War to recall these troops from their present position, and to post them as indicated by this resolution? I take it, that it is very unusual for the House of Representatives to say that particular corps of the Army shall be posted in this position or in that position. But, even admitting that we might so direct, I am not ready to vote that resolution. It not only proposes to order the regiment to Oregon, but to post it What has the Executive to do then? Can in various detachments, in particular sections of he withhold these troops from that service? Can that country, after it shall have arrived there. We he say that instead of sending them against that are asked, not only to direct the Commanding Gen-nation, they shall be sent elsewhere? No, sir. eral, but to order the General of Division and the All he has to do is to take charge of the Army head of the regiment. I am not sufficiently in- and Navy designed for that service, and exercise formed as to the urgent necessity for this procedure his executive functions to carry out the will of the Legislature. to vote for it. I do not know the exact condition of the localities and of the settlements in Oregon sufficiently well to undertake this absolute and peremptory order. While I may have confidence in the military sagacity of the Delegate from Oregon, I yet feel that something of etiquette is due to the person who conducts the military affairs of the country, and that we ought not, upon the sole representations of the honorable Delegate as to his views of the necessities of Oregon, to instruct the Secretary to dispatch the rifle corps thither, regardless of the Secretary's views of the necessities of other sections of the country. Much less, then, can I consent, after the troops shall arrive in Oregon, to direct that detachments shall be posted at this point or at that point. That would be a direct reflection upon the capacity of the Commanding Officer to dispose the troops properly for the defence of the Territory. We might indicate by bill that military posts shall be established at the points indicated, or to cover certain roads, or to protect certain valleys; but we should leave the kind of force, and the amount of force which will occupy these posts, to the direction of the officer who has the management of that frontier, under his responsibility to the Commanding General. I am disposed-indeed, I am anxious-as far as lies in my power, to extend all necessary protection to our infant settlements on the Pacific, both north and south. I am anxious to render the path of the emigrant secure, and to make him feel that the solicitude of this Government for his welfare follows him by night and by day, through all his arduous journey to his distant home. I am unwilling, however, in the gratification of this proper desire, to assume the responsibility of so controlling the War De war. Mr. MEACHAM. I would ask the gentleman if President Polk did not frequently remove portions of the Army without the authority of Congress' Mr. DUNHAM. Why, that question is certainly as novel as the doctrine asserted by the gentleman from Virginia. If President Polk ever ordered the Army in a particular direction, without the authority of Congress, does that militate against the doctrine which I lay down? We declared war against Mexico, and raised troops for that express purpose, and by the Constitution, under the doctrine I am laying down, the President took charge of the Army, in order to carry out the will of the Legislature. Mr. MEACHAM. The gentleman's answer does not cover my question. I ask him, if President Polk did not frequently remove portions of the Army, without the authority of Congress, before war was declared against Mexico? Mr. DUNHAM. Even suppose I admit that, did he do it in cases where it was expressly provided by law that the troops should be otherwise situated? He frequently, no doubt, changed the position of our troops, but they were not troops raised and destined by the Legislature for a particular service. This question has never been raised, and I assure this House that it is, in my opinion, one of the most important questions that has been raised here for many a day, and I think it ought to be correctly settled. I do not understand that the law makes it positively obligatory on the President to place this regiment in the Ŏregon service; but that it was the intention of Congress that it should be so employed is clearly inferable from the act itself, and from the circumstances under which that act was Mr. MARSHALL (interrupting) made a remark which was totally inaudible to the Reporter. Mr. DUNHAM, (resuming.) I did not intend to discuss the propriety of taking the troops there. My object was simply to enter my protest against the doctrine that the Congress of the Untied States has not the right to direct how the troops of the United States shall be employed. The suggestion has been made to me, and I think with a good deal of force, in relation to the other side of the House. I allude to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS;] and I beg to ask that gentle. man whether, in the time of the Mexican war, his side of the House, or at least some members on that side, did not undertake the control of the Army in Mexico, and direct the withdrawal of it? Mr. BROOKS. If the gentleman from Indiana will allow me, I did not hear him when he first alluded to me, or I should have answered immediately. I did not lay down the doctrine that the legislative power of the country could not control the direction of the Army. The position which is assumed in the resolution, and to which I said I was opposed, was, that the House of Representatives, in itself, had the right to control the direction of the Army. Now I say that this position is not correct. The two Houses of Congress cannot control it, but the legislative power of the country may. It not only requires the assent of both Houses, but it must have the approval of the Executive before that control can be had. Mr. DUNHAM. Well, sir; that is about as singular as the position taken by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. BAYLY.] Nobody pretends that the House of Representatives, of itself, can control the disposition of the troops of the United States. We do not ask any such thing. Mr. BROOKS. Why, that is the very object and effect of the resolution. Mr. DUNHAM. Not as I understand it. Mr. BAYLY. The gentleman from Indiana entirely misconceives the scope of my remarks. In a speech of a few minutes in length, I certainly did not intend to define all the limitations and the precise extent of the respective authorities of Congress and of the Executive over our military forces. All that I said yesterday was precisely what the gentleman admits to-day. I did not only take the ground which the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] takes, that one branch of Congress cannot take the command of the Army, but I said that both branches could not do it. 1 denied that Congress had any such power, and that is all that I deny. I never mentioned that Congress could not establish military posts. I never maintained that Congress could not prescribe the character of those forces-whether they should be cavalry, riflemen, infantry, or anything else. I meant to say that when we had raised an army, and provided for the support of that army, it then belongs to the Commander-in-Chief to say whether it shall be posted here or there. It cannot belong to Congress, unless Congress is Commanderin-Chief of the Army. Mr. DUNHAM. That is the very position which I occupy, as I understand the gentleman's explanation. I undertake to say, that Congress have the right to raise troops for a particular purpose, and to give them that particular direction, and then nothing remains for the Commander-inChief but to take charge of those troops in that direction and to apply them to that purpose. He may give direction to the troops in detail-if I may use the expression-in carrying out the law of Congress. Let us look at this matter. In the time of the Seminole war, for instance, does any gentleman undertake to say that Congress had not the right to raise a corps for that service, or that the Executive had the right to dispose of that corps in any way other than for the prosecution of that war? All that the Executive had to do was to take charge of those troops and control them for that purpose. I apprehend that no one will contend that the Executive had the right to give those troops any other direction. That is my doctrine. If I am correct in that case, then I ask, if the Executive has any more right, when Congress has raised a regiment of mounted riflemen for the purpose of stationing them on the routes to Oregon, to divert them from that particular service? I think not. The law which created this regiment, created it for a particular purpose, and the President had nothing to do but to dispose of the troops according to that law. But I was going on to reply to the gentleman from New York. I do not understand this resolution to be a resolution directing the President how to dispose of these troops in any particular way. I do not apprehend that the House have that power. But as the Representatives of the people, they have the right to request him to make this or that disposition of the power intrusted in his hands. I think that can be done, either by the people or the people's Representatives, and I trust the time will not pass away when we shall not have that right. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I think this discussion has gone far enough. every gentleman who has hitherto addressed the House upon this question. It has been taken for granted that this regiment was ordered by law to be stationed in Oregon, and not to be withdrawn. But though it has been taken for granted that they were ordered by the law which created that regiment, to be stationed in Oregon, or on the route to Oregon, I say that there is no such thing in the law or the title at all. Mr. DUNHAM. The gentleman is mistaken if he supposes that I said expressly that that law ordered the regiment to be stationed on the route to Oregon. I did not say that; I said that from the title of the law it was evident that such was its intention, although the law itself does not expressly say so. Mr. EVANS. Well, I deny that. Mr. GORMAN. That is precisely the position, that from the title of the bill it was evident that it was the intention, in making the law, that the troops should be stationed in Oregon. Mr. EVANS. I deny that. I say that there is no such thing in the bill, or the title, or the preamble, or anywhere else. But I also deny another proposition, which has been presented here with great vehemence and urged with great force-if vehemence is force-that the Secretary of War is bound to come here and look into the character of our debates in this House, in order to ascertain what the acts mean. I dare say that some of the acts would require such a research, in order to make them intelligable, but it is a singular state of affairs if the debates of a legislative body are to be investigated in order to ascertain what the legislative act is. Now let us recur to the facts of the case, and see whether the construction which the gentleman puts upon the law is the correct one. I will commence with the title, but before I am through I shall have the whole act read. It is entitled "An act to provide for raising a regiment of mounted riflemen." That is the first part of it. Mr. DUNHAM. Well, read the last part of it. Mr. EVANS. I will read the last part, and the Mr. EVANS. It has been all on one side whole act too, after a while. though. Mr. JONES. Whatever may be the power of Congress in relation to this matter, I agree with the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. DUNHAM,] that this House has no right to give this direction. I move the previous question. Mr. EVANS. I ask the gentleman to allow me to say something in relation to this matter. The question has yet been discussed only on one side. Mr. LANE. As the mover of this resolution, I ask whether I have not the right to reply if the previous question is seconded? The SPEAKER. That can only be done when the resolution is introduced from a committee. Mr. JONES. I decline to withdraw the call for the previous question. The question then being upon seconding the call for the previous question, Mr. JONES demanded tellers; which were ordered; and Messrs. KING, of New York, and WILLIAMS were appointed. The question was then taken, and the tellers reported-ayes 43, noes 79. So the House refused to second the call for the previous question. Mr. DUNHAM. I only want the title. Let us have the last of it. Mr. EVANS. The last part of it is: "and for establishing military stations on the route to Oregon." And does that bind the Secretary of War to station those mounted riflemen in Oregon, or on the route to Oregon? How could mounted troops alone garrison a fort? I will explain the true cause for raising this regiment. It was gotten up at the time or shortly after our difficulties with Great Britain, and the excitement which was caused in consequence of those difficulties was the cause of its passing through the House. But there is nothing in the law which instructs the Secretary of War to station that regiment on the route to Oregon, or in Oregon. There is not a particle of evidence that such was its intention. say there is nothing in the law compelling him to station and maintain that regiment in Oregon. But suppose there was: I assert in my place, that they were withdrawn from the Territory of Oregon by the request of the then Delegate from Oregon, [Mr. Thurston,] and that they were withdrawn from the Territory of California by the advice of distinguished gentlemen then, and some of them now, in power, residing in that State. I was on the Committee on Military Affairs during the last Congress, and the representative from Oregon [Mr. Thurston] frequently appeared be Mr. EVANS. I thank the House for its courtesy in having voted down the motion for the previous question-a motion brought forward and urged here, after a long debate, which was carried on almost altogether on one side of the question-fore it, and he has told me repeatedly, and again only one single gentleman having spoken in defence of the administration of the War Department of the Government. The Democrats of the House have in this instance shown an impartiality for which I thank them, for without their assistance the call for the previous question could not have been voted down. I I cannot but feel my deficiency in ability to discuss this question as it ought to be discussed. I know very well that I cannot compensate the House for the kindness and indulgence which they have shown me, but I do intend to give them some little information in regard to this question. promise to open, at least, one or two sources of information which have not been touched upon by other gentlemen at all. I do not hesitate to say that there has been no assumption of power, in ordering the withdrawal of those troops from Oregon. Such assumption has been taken for granted by and again-and there are gentlemen sitting about me whom I might call upon to corroborate my statement if it were necessary-that the people of Oregon did not want one of them in Oregon, and that they could defend themselves, if we would furnish the money. It is in the recollection of gentlemen upon this floor, that at the last session of Congress we gave to Oregon $100,000 in cash for the purpose of paying their expenses in this Cayuse war. That is the state of facts. What is it now? The Delegate from Oregon, [Mr. LANE] a highly-respected gentleman, and with whom this country is very well acquainted, a man, no doubt, well versed in military affairs, and from whose brow, were it in my power, I would not pluck one laurel-that gentleman comes forward and states, that in order to protect the people on the route to Oregon, a certain course on the part of the Administration is necessary, and that the War Department must act in a certain way, and start troops upon certain routes. Now, his predecessor, who was listened to, and whose voice was heard, advised directly to the contrary. Such was his advice; and so he stated directly, and I am prepared to prove it-I know, unfortunately, that he is dead, and I have therefore a reluctance in bringing in his name; I had the happiness during his life of an opportunity of showing him some acts of kindness, and I feel disinclined to drag his name into debate-he stated expressly to the War Department, that mounted rifles were not suited to the Oregon Territory; that it was an irregular and mountainous country; that it was impossible to pursue the Indians on horseback; and that infantry ought to be substituted. Such were his declarations; and in accordance with the advice of a distinguished member of the Democratic party, and of the advice of the then Delegate, who was intimately acquainted with the character of the population, and had traveled extensively over the country, infantry was proposed to be substituted for mounted troops. Mr. LANE. If the gentleman will allow me, for I hate to see the gentleman go too far wrong, I wish to say the gentleman has come to wrong conclusions upon two or three points. It may be true, and I do not doubt it, that the first Delegate from Oregon advised the removal of the mounted regiment from that country; but it is not true that he resided a long time in that Territory. He ar rived there late in the fall of 1847, and was elected in the spring of 1849 to the Congress of the United States, and immediately left for this city. He had never traveled outside of the settlements, nor had he seen but a very small portion of that Territory. Another thing has been stated, that $100,000 has been given to Oregon in consideration of the removal of the troops from Oregon, to enable them to defend themselves. Mr. EVANS. No, sir. I did not state that. I stated that $100,000 was voted by Congress to the Territory of Oregon to pay the expenses of the war against the Cayuse Indians. That is what I stated. If the gentleman denies it, I will produce the records. Mr. LANE. That is true. Mr. EVANS. Now I want the Delegate from Oregon to tell me how long he has been in Oregon. I recollect, since I came to Congress, that he was a distinguished officer in the Mexican war. Mr. LANE. Mr. Thurston arrived in Oregon in September or October, 1847, and left for Washington city in 1849. I arrived there in 1848, and remained until 1851. Mr. EVANS. I do not think it a matter at all material. I took it for granted that the gentleman was acquainted with the state of this Territory. At any rate, he knew it better than any one else. He was then a representative upon this floor. I am sure he pretended to an acquaintance with it; he showed a great deal of information about it; and as I was a little curious about the country, I asked a great many questions, which he answered intelligently. He issued a circular to the whole country, informing the people about the geography and topography of Oregon, as inducements to emigrate there. Well, sir, upon the representations of that gentleman, that mounted troops were unfit for that Territory, infantry were proposed to be substituted in their place, and the Secretary of War is now assailed for doing it. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. GORMAN] says it was a most unheard-of proposition. The Secretary of War followed the best lights he had, and he cannot be blamed for it. Now I will state another matter, in reference to this Oregon regiment. Gentlemen take it for granted that in the bill for raising that regiment, it provided that the regiment should be posted in Oregon. I say there is no such provision. But granting that it is there, this regiment was raised in 1846. Now I assert that this regiment, as a regiment, had never been in Oregon. A portion of it had been there. It had been sent there by no previous Administration, either Mr. Polk's, General Taylor's, or Mr. Fillmore's, down to this time. And if it was a crime to take them away, it was equally as great a fault not to have sent them all there. I do not think the gentleman from Oregon will state that the regiment has been there at any period whatever. Now, by the resolution gon? Oh, no. Not at all; but on the road to does the gentleman want these troops sent to Ore Building marine hospitals, custom-houses, And for miscellaneous items not enumera- Oregon. He does not want to carry out the ori- his position. If the acquirement of new territory But the main reason why the troops could not be continued in Oregon is, that you refused the necessary appropriations to the Quartermaster's department-the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. MARSHALL] to the contrary notwithstanding. Last year we had a debate upon the Quartermaster's department. I do not propose to vindicate that department now. That will be more appropriate hereafter. I do not propose to vindicate its expenses, or say whether they are too little or too great. But I do say that the increased expenses of that department entirely arise out of the possessions we have obtained upon the Pacific coast; out of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which you are under a solemn pledge to observe. That treaty was made under a Democratic Administration by Mr. Polk. By that treaty we bound ourselves to protect the frontiers of Mexico from the incursions of the Indians, who shall come there for the purpose of attacks upon its inhabitants. Have we observed its stipulations in good faith? Does not every gentleman know that Mexico has claims against us for millions of dollars on acconnt of our neglect of its provisions? Does not every gentlemen know, as well as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. HoWARD] himself, that the most warlike Indians to be found anywhere in the territory of the United States are in Texas? Mr. GORMAN, (interrupting.) I would like to have the gentleman answer this question: What has the Secretary of War done with the first, second, and third dragoons? Mr. EVANS. I will answer, that I do not know what he has done with them; but as soon as the question arises, I will find out. I am going to stick to the question now up-the resolution of the gentleman from Oregon-and we will attend to the dragoons afterwards. I was speaking of our obligations under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. I have always found this House of Representatives particularly skillful in stationing troops, and afterwards particularly skillful in shirking the bills. Now, sir, more warlike and merciless Indians are not to be found in the territory of the United States, than those upon the borders of Texas and New Mexico-Indians who do not shrink from an encounter with the AngloSaxon race. We are bound by a solemn treaty stipulation to keep them from aggressions upon Mexico; and it was stated in this House, upon the debate relative to the Quartermaster's department during the last Congress, that these mounted rifles were withdrawn for the purpose of sending them to Texas, in order, as numerous gentlemen said, and myself among the number, to lessen the expenses of the Quartermasters's department. It was necessary that they should be there; and we were told that they were of no use in Oregon and California, and that infantry could serve a much better purpose there. They were, therefore, withdrawn and brought into the territory of Texas, for the purpose of carrying out our obligations under the treaty with Mexico, as well as for the purpose of protecting the people of Texas from Indian devastation. I was under the impression that Mr. Polk had withdrawn these troops, but I was mistaken as to the mounted riflemen. I will undertake to show, however, that Mr. Polk did withdraw troops from the line between the western frontiers and Oregon. ious to know where this expenditure of $50,000,000 The gentleman left the House to the belief that able to the war... To which may be added- Interest on war debt from 30th June, 1852, Texas boundary Stock to be issued.. 1,288,741 87 4,205,751 50 529,443 64 $145,147,062 43 .$124,252,719 08 13,387,544 06 41,173,493 38 17,346,750 00 765,069 37 10,000,000 00 7,000,000 00 3,250,000 00 Thus we have, of expenditures and liabili- And which does not include many claims presented and to be presented, arising indirectly from the war, this great variety forbidding even an approximation, either as to number or amount. Statement R gives the annual expenditures from 1828 to 1841, 3,481,158 95 13,924.635 80 1,198,141 18 3,484.775 04 1,525,000 00 170,200 00 350,000 00 201,830 40 Payment on account of principal of public debt...... 643,548 00 16,388,396 37 Payment of liquidated claims against Mex- Survey of coast of California............. 100,000 00 30,910 14 2,089,578 84 200,000 00 Renewal of diplomatic intercourse with Expenses of Board of Commissioners on Survey of boundary line between the United 37,560 61 44,428 39 335,000 00 200,000 00 Survey of the coast of California.. Amount to 1852, occasioned by the war.... I want gentlemen to tell me how the Secretary of War is to carry troops into Oregon, California, and along the immense line of the Gila to the Pacific ocean, and between the Missouri and the Rocky Mountains, with the number of men now in the Army, and with the small means of transportation and subsistence at his disposal? It is impossible. It is in vain that you endeavor to shirk the responsibility upon us. It is the duty of every upright and candid legislator, at once to assume the responsibility that belongs to Building light-houses, beacons, buoys, &e. Building revenue cutters, before paid out of To which sum of..... 640,000 00 147,300 00 150,879 41 124,252,719 08 1,276,000 00 600,000 00 1,768,752 57 6,813,557 95 412,134 70 2,923,166 36 101,999 50 138,148,330 16 974,795 26 Deficiencies Post Office Department...... By deducting this aggregate of excess of... $23,199,148 64 from the aggregate estimated expenditures for the year ending 30th June, 1852, of $48,124,993 18, there will remain as the estimated ordinary expenditures, the sum of $24,925,844 54. Thus it will be seen that of the aggregate expenditures, actual and estimated, for the seven years ending on the 30th June, 1852, amounting to $294,807,407 95, the sum of $138,148,330 18, exclusive of $13,387,544 06, interest on the war debt, is required to sustain the faith of the Government, pledged or implied, or arising in consequence of its acts during a period subsequent to 30th June, 1845, and prior to 1st July, 1849. Some of the objects of these estimated expenditures, by reason of the extended area of territory, have been made either permanent charges upon the Treasury or will continue for a long series of years, and may be stated as follows: Excess of expenditures of War Department, excess of expenditures of Navy Department, pensions, interest on war debt, territorial governments, survey of boundary line, survey of coast of California, Indians, judiciary, &c. Further experience will undoubtedly result in compelling still greater expenditures in the fulfillinent of treaty stipulations, and in controlling and subduing the Indians and other lawless bands with which our newly-acquired territories are infested, and before there will be that permanent emigration to and settlement therein of that class of our citizens so necessary to a full development of the resources and defence of that country. Mr. DISNEY. I am very sorry to interrupt the gentleman from Maryland, but I rise simply to say to the House that I apprehend this debate will amount practically to nothing. I had a personal interview with the Secretary of War a few moments since, and he stated to me that it was his intention to station mounted men upon the roads to Oregon. At my suggestion the Delegate from Oregon had also an interview with the Secretary, and he is entirely satisfied, and this whole matter can be accomplished without the intervention of the House. Mr. EVANS. I am sure when I give the gentleman the courtesy of the floor, that he ought not to ask me to stop speaking. [Laughter.] That is not quite fair. Mr. DISNEY. I was going to add, that in a very short time we will have up the deficiency bills, and then my friend from Maryland will have ample opportunity to debate this subject. Mr. EVANS. I feel indeed confident that I have not succeeded in making this subject very agreeable to the House. But I have almost got through what I have to say. And since members have listened to me with so much kind indulgence and so much patient attention, I scarcely feel myself justified in speaking again on it as the gentleman suggests, for I should, I can assure the House, then begin all over again: besides, I think it necessary to vindicate the Secretary of War, who has here been assailed upon this very occasion. I think, then, that as the House has borne that part of the infliction which I have already given it, members had better take the balance now, and not have it in divided portions. Several MEMBERS. "Go on!" "Go on!" Mr. EVANS. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not quote these figures at this time for the purpose of casting censure upon any political party; but in order to vindicate the truth of history, to show out of what large expenditures have arisen, to give the true authors of them, and to let praise and blame light where they severally belong. If I have succeeded in showing, as I believe every reasonable, candid gentleman will admit I have shown, that your largely increased governmental expenses have sprung out of the Mexican war, and out of our foreign acquisitions, I shall permit other gentlemen to quote the vast mineral resources of California, her importance in connection with the trade of the East, which is about to pour its golden rewards into her lap; and further, to dwell upon the military and civil, the agricultural and commercial importance of that Territory, if it please members to take up such a line of argument. I am not arraigning them for any unfair or partisan purpose, but the reason is, that I wish to show gentlemen who talk about millions, and charge by implication the whole of it to the Army, that there is a way for persons sufficiently industrious to discover where it comes from. It is all here in this report. I will merely now refer members to this little book, and when they get home they can send for it to the document room. It is very amusing, particularly the figure part. Members can reflect upon the matter in their hours of private meditation; and we all know that members take a particular pleasure in studying political arithmetic. Mr. EVANS. It is Executive document No. 11, Second Session Thirty-first Congress. Mr. FULLER. What is the page? Mr. EVANS. Pages seven and eight. It contains a most formidable array of figures. Now, sir, the expenses of the Quartermaster's department of the Army has necessarily increased from one single fact. I do not propose to enter upon the question as to whether they have increased too much; nor can I see how it can be well done without striking a blow at the public reputation and private credit at the able head of that department. It may be done by admitting his inefficiency, or his dishonesty. One of these causes must be taken, and I do not therefore propose entering into the items of it. Gentlemen will bear in mind that previous to the acquisition of our new territoryand there are gentlemen in this House of sufficient ability to correct me if I am wrong-we had not a post that could not be reached by steamboat navigation. The troops of the United States are now withdrawn from those posts of easy access in the north and east, the northwest and southwest and have been removed to the far frontiers of the country-stationed in Texas, in New Mexico, in California, and in Oregon, where provisions can be obtained only with difficulty. I remember having seen, at the last session of Congress, a document sent to us from the Territory of Oregon. I do not know whether it came from the honorable Dele ness, and want of economy in that department. He says: "It is probable, however, that, in some instances, the expenditures, both of the Quartermaster and Commissary departments, may have been increased by mal administration. The transactions of both these departments involve such a variety of details, and their agents are so far removed from the supervision of their chiets, that abuses may exist a long time before they are discovered. Every effort, however, has been used to detect these abuses and to prevent their recurrence. Inspectors have been sent to the frontiers to inquire into the manner in which the affairs of these departments are administered, and a rigid serutiny into accounts has been ordered. I regret to say that the Department has some reason to fear that its apprehensions on this subject were not altogether without foundation." gate from that Territory or not. At any rate it I read from the Congressional Globe, second "The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. BURT] bad "Mr. TooMBS said, if he had struck in the dark it was people. The people of Oregon, New Mexico, and California must be defended, and we must observe the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and prevent these predatory Indians from making incursions into the Republic of Mexico. It is our bounden duty, and it should be our pride, to maintain good faith with all nations. But we must not seek to make the defence, and at the same time to get rid of the expenditure. I will return a single moment to the subject of the raising of these mounted riflemen. I want thoroughly to vindicate the Secretary of War in this matter. And I now assert, that this regiment never was in Oregon as a regiment; That is Mr. ToOMBS's vindication for striking in portions of it were in California from the beginthe dark; and the fact that the Committee of Waysning. If, then, the Secretary violated his duty and Means of this House having struck in the drawing the portion stationed in Oregon, what is and disobeyed the dictates of the law in withdark is not, I believe, denied. They did not act upon any ascertained facts in cutting down the expenses of the Quartermaster's department, but from a general disposition to do it. It was done without one single gentleman in this House having sufficient information, by their own acknowledgment to tell to what extent it should be done. My honorable friend from Kentucky, [Mr. MAR-tations of the Delegate from Oregon himself. In SHALL,] who knows as much about military matters as any other gentleman upon this floor, (and I wish I knew as much,) voted against the appropriation to the Quartermaster's department. So far as I can discover in this Congressional Globe, he never explained to this House why they ought to be cut down, where they ought to be cut down, or upon what account, but he struck in the dark. Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky. The gentleman has not displayed his usual industry in ransacking the Congressional Globe, or he would have found that I gave my reasons for my vote at the time it was given, and I did not go through the items which made up the $5,000,000, of the QuarMy not attempting to investigate the items was very reasonable, when gentlemen of the Military Committee announced to the House that they had tried to obtain them, termaster's accounts. but had failed. Mr. EVANS. I will now quote some remarks "In relation to the remarks of the gentleman from Mary land [Mr. McLANE] I may say, sir, that this matter of Thus it appears from the remarks of the gen- to be thought of the conduct of those who were in power when the act passed, knew the intentions of Congress upon the subject, and yet failed to send the regiment to its intended destination? But I shall show that the Secretary is not to be blamed for the withdrawal of the troops, for he was induced to withdraw them on the represen the debates upon this floor, in the last Congress, it was stated that these troops were unnecessary in Oregon and California. I wish to vindicate promise to vindicate him to the full satisfaction of the Secretary of War. I will go further, and the House. I do not want to do it by way of sophistical argument. I might thus, perhaps, impose upon those who did not pay strict attention to the fallacious reasoning, but I will vindicate him by letting every gentleman see the facts. I will make the act itself for the raising the regiment of mounted riflemen, vindicate the Secretary of War. The Secretary of War, I venture to assert, cannot find out from the act that a mounted regiment is to be raised and stationed in Oregon. Having stated thus much by preface, I come to the act. "An Act to provide for raising a regiment of mounted riflemen, and for establishing military stations on the route to Oregon." Now, here are two distinct parts to this title, as there are two distinct parts to the body of the act itself, as I shall show presently. It was necessary that there should be two such parts, in order properly to characterize the contents of the bill; but there is no necessary connection between them: the same bill might have contained provisions for riflemen for Maine, or Texas, or anywhere, and the other for "Military stations on the route to Mr. GORMAN. The Secretary of War states Oregon." Such might have been the intention of in his report, as one of the causes for the extraor- Congress; and if our bills are to be interpreted dinary expenditure in the Quartermaster's depart upon such a principle as this, we shall have some ment, that there have been great frauds committed, strange adjudications with regard to many of them; that there has been great extravagance, reckless-for the most incongruous, or only seemingly con gruous provisions, upon quite independent subjects, exist in the most of them. A bill passed the Legislature of Pennsylvania providing for the appointment of a justice of the peace, and there was also put into it, without the knowledge of the Legislature, a bill for a railroad, but I never heard it contended that the justice of the peace was to build it. Now, this act does not provide that these troops must be sent to Oregon. If so, how long are they to remain there? I ask gentlemen, when are they to be withdrawn-within a century? Or is it to be when the act is repealed? If the act states simply that they shall go there, it must be left to the sound discretion of the President of the United States to say when they shall be withdrawn. Congress could not have the information to declare when the longer retention of troops at a post was unnecessary, and they might do fatal injury to a frontier people, by withdrawing them at an improper time, thus exposing them to the cruelties and barbarities of the Indians. I will now proceed to fulfill my promise, given in the beginning of this debate, to quote the whole act, and to show that there is nowhere in it any command to the Secretary to station these mounted rifles in Oregon, or to continue them there. The act is as follows: AN ACT to provide for raising a regiment of mounted Riflemen, and for establishing military stations on the route to Oregon. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatires of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there shall be raised one regiment of mounted rifleinen, to be composed and organized as follows, to wit: One colonel, one lieutenant colonel, one major, one quartermaster sergeant, and two chief buglers, one adjutant, who shall be a neutenant, one sergeant major, one chief musician, and ten companies: each company shall consist of one captain, one first lieutenant, one second lieutenant, (exclusive of the adjutant lieutenant,) four sergeants, four corporals, two buglers, one farrier, one blacksinith, and sixty-four privates. SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the officers, non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates shall be entitled to the same pay and emoluments as are allowed to dragoons, and that the farrier and blacksmith shall reeeive the same pay and allowances as are allowed to an artificer of artillery. SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the said regiment of riflemen shall be subject to the rules and articles of war, and shall be recruited in the same manner as other troops in the service of the United States, and with the same conditions and limitations; and the officers, noncommissioned officers, musiciaus, privates, blacksmiths, and farriers shall be entitled to the same provisions forwounds and disabilities, and the same provisions for widows and children, and the same allowances and benefits, in every respect, as are allowed to other troops composing the Army of the United States. SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates of said regiment, when employed in constructing fortifications, making surveys, cutting roads, or performing other labor, shall be allowed fifteen cents per day each, with a commutation in money for the extra spirit ration, as provided by the act of the second of March, one thousand eight hundred and nineteen, entitled "An act to regulate the pay of the ariny when on fatigue duty. SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That the sum of seventy-six thousand five hundred dollars, for mounting and equipping said regiment, be, and the same hereby is appropriated, to be paid out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That a sum not exeeeding three thousand dollars, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, be, and the same hereby is appropriated, to defray the expenses of each military station or defence which the President may deem necessary on the line of communication with Oregon, and a sum not exceeding two thousand dollars for making compensation to the Indian tribes which may own or possess the ground on which the said station may be erected, and for each station. APPROVED, May 19, 1846. It thus appears that in the whole act, the word "Oregon" appears only in the sixth section, and in the preamble, which is a reference to that section. And what does the sixth section provide? Why, that $3,000 be appropriated to defray the expenses of each military station on the line of communication with Oregon. Well, such stations have been provided, and I now desire anybody to tell me whereabouts in this section it appears that the mounted rifles are to be sent to Oregon, and not to be withdrawn from that Territory. There is no syllable of such an expression; there is nothing, absolutely nothing in the whole act, preamble and all, to point out to the present Secretary of War that he must not withdraw the mounted troops from Oregon without the|| consent and direction of Congress. And now 1 should like any gentleman to show me any part of this act which requires the troops to go to Oregon and not be withdrawn, or which points out definitely or indefinitely any intention of Congress upon the subject. There is not a word from beginning to end, notwithstanding the assault which has been made upon the Secretary of War, that he was derelict to his duty. But we I trust that I have justified his course. have heard here to-day some very high pretensions and elevated notions with regard to the power of the Executive. Why, when I first came to Congress, it was contended by the party now having a majority in this House, that the President of the United States, as conqueror of a foreign nation, had a right to give laws to the conquered. That was the doctrine when I came here. I am glad that better opinions and principles at least begin to prevail. And now I repeat, that with all the vague declamation which has been poured out upon the Secretary of War, and the President of the United States, for not observing the direction of the Congress upon this subject, an entire misconception has sprung up in regard to it. The act has been misconceived. It does not direct at all what it has been supposed to direct, as any one will find out if he will examine it. If the act did direct troops to be sent to a certain post, there is no question that the President of the United States, in the exercise of a sound discretion, or the Secretary of War had the right to withdraw the troops, if it became necessary so to do. They could not be there forever. And if no such power existed, then an enemy might cut off, or destroy forces so unhappily situated. Well, the Secretary did withdraw the troops, not being compelled by the act to retain them at that post; and he did it upon the representation of those who were well informed, or who professed to be well informed. Now a word as to the military capacity of the Secretary of War. I believe, since he has been in the administration of that Department, that he has given to it his careful study, and has devoted his time to it; so that he has become exceedingly well acquainted upon all the points connected with military affairs. I believe he has performed his full duty to the Department in this respect; and though I know he is not a military man by profession, that he was an eminent civilian and lawyer, before he came to Washington, having an extensive practice in the State of Louisiana, yet I know he has capacity, as far as the elements of the military art are concerned, and, I believe, he has by industry, by study, and by reflection, fully qualified himself for the post he occupies. What is the assault made upon him? It is, that he had substituted infantry for mounted riflemen; and when you get to the facts, it was by the express request of the former Delegate from Oregon, that the substitution was made. That Delegate came forward and stated, that mounted riflemen were unsuited to the Oregon country, which was an abrupt, broken, and mountainous region-that the Indians could escape with the greatest ease and facility from such a character of force. He stated, that while mounted rifles might be very proper upon the plains of Texas and the great prairies of the West, yet in a country totally different in all its physical configurations, it would be improper to employ that kind of troops; and the Secretary is now assailed for listening to the advice of the Delegate. Suppose the Secretary had said, I know more about Oregon than you do; I shall continue the mounted troops. And suppose he had continued them, and that on account of that continuance massacres had taken place, and innocent people had been driven from their homes for the want of foot soldiers or infantry, who were necessary to their protection. Why what reproaches would have been poured upon his head, and how justly he would have been subjected to the indignation of the whole country! Mr. LANE. Did the Secretary of War send the infantry there? Mr. EVANS. I think he did, but I am not now prepared to answer the question. Mr. LANE. No such thing has been done. Mr. EVANS. If the gentleman is certain about it, I will give it up at once. It is of no importance to the question under discussion. The Delegate from Oregon [Mr. Thurston] stated, and the gentleman from New York, by my side, heard him, that the people of Oregon did not want any troops there, if the Government would pay them for defending themselves-that they could take care of themselves, if furnished with a tithe of the money troops would cost. Now, that is a good reason for not sending the infantry, if one is wanted. The Delegate from Oregon, representing that Territory, must be presumed to know what the interests and wishes of the people of that Territory are; and if the Government here, in pursuance of those interests and wishes, followed them out, ought it now to be denounced by the succeeding Delegate from the Territory of Oregon, for having done just what it was requested to do? I think the Administration showed a great willingness to do everything for Oregon. I know the Committee on Military Affairs consulted with the War Department. I also felt myself a profound interest in that country. I consider that the people went there when there was but little to attract them. I felt that they had gone to a Territory, where they could have but a doubtful title to their lands, and where they must live in constant danger of attack from hostile bands of Indians, who were upon their paths everywhere. They had to scale the lofty summits of the Rocky Mountains, covered with eternal snow, and then descend into the valley of the Columbia, and enter a Territory little known, and unfriendly to their occupation. I believe that we have but a feeble conception of the sufferings of many of them. When I was on the Committee of Public Lands in the first session of the Thirtieth Congress, I advocated in committee a bill, by which was given to every settler in Oregon double the amount of land they now receive as a gratuity, and extending the benefits to settlers who should settle in that Territory by the year 1852. The committee reduced the proposition one half, and the bill passed at the last session of Congress in the form in which it had been presented previously. I only mention this to show that I have uniformly felt a kindness towards the people of that Territory. That kindness was not discontinued when I was a member of the Committee on Military Affairs. The last session we brought before the House a bill to pay $100,000 to the people of Oregon for the war with the Cayuse Indians. The Territory was at a remote distance, and we had neither accounts or vouchers before But we were still willing to be animated by the same spirit, and I must say that the War Department showed kindness and liberality towards the people of that Territory, and never refused to give them protection. That Department followed the advice of the Delegate from Oregon upon all proper occasions, and listened to him with consideration. Is the Secretary of War to be denounced for such conduct now? Does not the generous heart of every man revolt from the injustice of such a proceeding as that? I trust that I have vindicated sufficiently the course of the Secretary in this matter. There are many other facts to which I might refer. I desire gentlemen, who do not think the Secretary has done exactly right, and who may think I have made mistakes in these remarks, to have an opportunity of replying to what I have here stated. I shall move no previous question. There are characters to defend-there are reputations at stake, and they must be vindicated. If it is necessary to have mounted riflemen in Oregon, my word for it, as an honest man, you must raise them. If you raise them, you must make an appropriation for them. Do you propose to observe the treaty with Mexico? If so, troops may be required, and if troops, then money. But there is one branch of the subject to which I wish to advert for a moment. I have been two or three years upon the Committee on Military Affairs, so that I think I shall not be guilty of great presumption, if I should attempt to say a few words about the posting of these troops in Oregon. It would not be safe, nay it would be presumptuous for the House to undertake to specify the stations and positions of troops. I am speaking of the presumption of the House as a body, and not of any single individual. Why, you might place them in the most unfortunate positions, in which they would meet with certain disaster and overwhelming defeat, or in which they might be unable to get supplies, and therefore the House never has attempted to do anything of the kind. us. I have no objection to a resolution calling upon the President for any information, with regard to these mounted rifles. That regiment has now been called home, its horses have been sold in Oregon, and a great many of the soldiers have deserted, and gone to the gold mines of California. The regiment had become a skeleton regiment, and |
