Col. King was tried, convicted, and sentenced to be suspended, from all rank, pay, and emoluments, for five years. But it is not known that any others have been punished for these offences. Although the orders to shoot deserters whereever found in the province of West Florida were frequent, yet it does not appear that any one was actually obeyed except in the case of Neil Cameron; but this furnishes no excuse for the officers who gave the orders.

On the 8th of June, 1820, the President of the Uuited States, in compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives, laid before them a report of executions which had been inflicted in the Army since the year 1815, in which we find many cases of illegal and cruel punishments.

These facts, which the public ought to know, shew how rapidly abuses grow up in an Army, and how important it is, upon every principle of humanity as well as economy, that our peace establishment should be upon as small a footing as a regard for the safety of the country will admit. Such was the policy of Jeffersonsuch ought to be the policy of the nation-such is the policy of the party in Congress who are denounced as Radicals.

And shall the members thus denounced, who, with all this information, and much more of the same kind, before them, voted against recruiting 5,000 men in 1820, and in favor of reducing the Army to 6,000 in 1821-shall these inen be condemned by their constituents as the destroyers of useful establishments-and yet, for these, with other offences of a like character, they are pursued and persecuted by the Secretary of War and his hireling editors.

As early as the 17th of April, 1818, the Secretary was called upon by a resolution of the House of Representatives, offered by Mr. Trimble, of Kentucky, to report whether any, and, if any, what, reduction might be made in the Military Peace Establishment of the United States, with safety to the public service. In answer to which he made his report of the 11th of December, 1818, in which he gives it as his opinion that

"A reduction of the expense of the present establishment; cannot be made with safety to the public service, by reducing the army.' And that the expence of our military establishment cannot be materially reduced without injury to the public service, by reducing the pay and emoluments of the offi cers and soldiers."

An effort was made, however, to reduce the Army in the session of 1818 and '19, which was successfully resisted by the Secretary, in part by the official weight of his character, but much more by his address, and that of his friends, in producing an impression that the President of the United States was opposed to any reduction.

In 1820 the Secretary was directed to report, at the next session, a plan for reducing the army to 6,000 men, by a resolution offered by Mr. Clay. Kentucky seems to be the head quarters of Radicalism.

In 1821 the Army was reduced from 10,000 to 6,000 men, although the ten thousand were as much wanted then as they were in 1818.

The reduction in numbers was two-fifths, but the expense of the Army was not diminished in the same proportion, because the reduction fell chiefly on the rank and file, while nearly all the officers-the most expensive part-remained in service. The reduction of expense, however, must exceed half a million of dollars a year.

It seems, after all, that the President was not opposed to the reduction; for, in his Message of the 3d December, 1822, he says:

"The organizatiou of the several corps, composing the army, is such as to admit its expansion to a great extent, in case of emergency, the officers carrying with them all the light which they possess, to the new corps to which they might be appointed. With the organization of the staff there is equal cause to be satisfied."

If the Secretary was right in his report in 1818, that the Army could not be reduced with safety to the public service, then Congress have been guilty of an offence against him and against the nation. But if the reduction has been made without danger to the public service, then has the Secretary much to answer for at the bar of the public.

CASSIUS.

NO. IV.

"ECONOMY-MR. CALHOUN."

"Great savings in the War Department."

COLUMBIA TELESCOPE.

Whatever may be said of the conduct of Mr. Calhoun's friends, their courage will not be called in question.

To pass off upon the American people the most magnificent, the most visionary, and the most extravagant Secretary of War we have ever had, as a model of prudenee and economy, required a bold defiance of public opinion, of which our history happily affords but few examples.

As the Secretary's economy is the weakest part of his character, his friends, with military skill, have turned the whole of their artillery to the defence of this point.

Every thing that has had a tendency to reduce the expenses of the Army, has been ascribed to the superior management of Mr. Calhoun. All the retrenchments introduced by the Radical Members of Congress, have heen attributed to his economy. The money saved by the reduction of the Army, which he obstinately opposed, is carried to his credit. Whatever we have gained by favorable seasons, abundant crops, and the reduced price of provisions, is claimed as the work of this cconomical Secretary; and should it rain manna in the wilderness, which may be wanted for the support of our forces there, it will be considered as so much gained by him on account of subsistence, and recorded among his "great savings in the War Department.

No small part of the Secretary's great savings has been attributed to the establishment of the Commissariat system in 1818. Whatever merit there may be in the estab

.

lishment of that system, it is due almost exclusively to Col. Williams, late a very able and patriotic Senator from Tennessee; and certainly affords no strong reason for exalting Mr. Calhoun.

If there has been any great saving under this system, the credit is due to the management of the Commissary General, Mr. Gibson, who is truly a man of business and economy. But surely Mr. Calhoun is not to be made President of the United States, because George Gibson is a very good Commissary General.

The rapidity with which the old Army accounts have been brought to a close, is owing chiefly to the diligence of the Third Auditor, Peter Hagner, an intelligent, industrious, and vigilant officer, and who was so before Mr. Calhoun was known in the War Department.

All the credit due to these officers, and all others attached to the War Department, is carefully collected to form a stock of merit for the Army Candidate, in this his time of need; but to be restored, with interest, as soon as he shall become President of the United States.

These great savings, which are attributed to the Secretary of War, sound well in debate, and look well upon paper, but will not bear the test of examination.

In the Columbia Telescope, of S. Carolina, of 16th April, 1822, by way of shewing what immense savings Mr. Calhoun has made for the nation, we have the following statement of the expenditures of the Army for five

The good People of South Carolina, who verily believe, that they have "given to the nation, the ablest man who ever filled the War Department;" also believe that this great man by his superior economy, has made all the reduction in the expenditures of the army, that would appear, by the above statement; and that in 1822 for instance, he saved to the nation nearly two millions of dollars.

The sum of expenditures for 1822, is sated by estimate, that is, by guess work, and is too low, by nearly 129,000 Dollars; and the sums stated for 1820 and 21, are still more remote from the truth, as will appear from more authentic statements, made by Mr. Calhoun's friends at Washington.

The day before this great display of Mr., Calhoun's savings was made in South Carolina, a similar display was made at the Seat of Government. Mr. Sterling, of New York, Mr. Calhoun's confidential friend, in a speech in the House of Representetives, by way of shewing" that the expences of the army had been reduced to an extent, and with a rapidity truly surprizing," gives the following statements:*

299,46

1822

$16,87

135,69

164,55

153,11

"The proportion of the officers to the men in 1822, being greater than before, prevents the result of that year from being as favorable as prior to that time.

"Again; the whole expences of the army since 1818, have decreased as follows, viz

" 1818

1819

1820

1821

1822

$3,702,495,04

3,663,735,16

3,061,884,00

2,327,552,13

No. of Army

8,199

8,428

9,693

8,109

6,441"

1,929,179,91

This statement, although very erroneous, particularly in the last item, is a much nearer approach to the truth than that of South Carolina. Mr. Sterling was at the seat of government, and had the best opportunities of acquiring information. His statemeuts have a more imposing appearance, and have had more weight than any others upon this subject, and therefore are more worthy of examination.

The first thing that strikes us, in looking at these statements, is, that the whole come within the period of Mr. Calhoun's administration of the War Department, and afford us the opportunity of comparing Mr. Calhoun

See National Intelligencer, 23d April, 1822.