SENATE.

FEBRUARY, 1821.

This motion was negatived-yeas 24, nays 18, as follows:

he was willing to make great sacrifices; but he was not ready to play so bold a game as to volunteer to the other House a surrender of the whole principle for which they contended; especially as the Senate had already tendered to it one proposition, which had been there rejected. A compromise to the extent the proviso went would be

NAYS-Messrs. Barbour, Dana, Edwards, Elliott, Gaillard, Holmes of Maine, Holmes of Mississippi, Johnson of Kentucky, Johnson of Louisiana, King of Alabama, Knight, Morril, Palmer, Parrott, Pleasants, Roberts, Stokes, Talbot, Taylor, Thomas, Trimble, Walker of Alabama, Walker of Georgia, and Williams of Tennessee.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Tennessee, made an unsuccessful motion to lay the resolution on the table, with the view of taking up the Army bill.

Mr. KING, of New York, renewed the motion previously made and withdrawn by Mr. BARBOUR, to strike from the resolution all the proviso, as follows:

66

Provided, That the following be taken as fundamental conditions and terms upon which the said State is admitted into the Union, namely that the fourth clause of the twenty-sixth section of the third article of the constitution, submitted by the people of Missouri to the consideration of Congress, shall, as soon as the provisions of said constitution will admit, be so modified, that it shall not impair the privileges or immunities of any description of persons who may now be, or hereafter shall become, citizens of any State in this Union; and that, until so modified, no law, passed in conformity thereto, shall be construed to exclude any citizen of either State in this Union, from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and immunities to which such citizen is entitled under the Constitution of the United States."

The motion was decided, without debate, in the negative, by yeas and nays, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Brown, Gaillard, Holmes of Mississippi, King of Alabama, King of New York, Macon, Mills, Otis, Sanford, Smith, Tichenor, Van Dyke, Walker of Alabama, Williams of Mississippi, and Williams of Tennessee-15.

NAYS-Messrs. Barbour, Chandler, Dana, Dickerson, Eaton, Edwards, Elliott, Holmes of Maine, Horsey, Johnson of Kentucky, Johnson of Louisiana, Knight, Lanman, Lowrie, Morril, Noble, Palmer, Parrott, Pleasants, Roberts, Southard, Stokes, Talbot, Taylor Thomas, Trimble, and Walker of Georgia-27. Mr. BROWN moved to amend the proviso so as to deprive it of its injunction on the State of Missouri to amend its constitution in the clause referred to, and leave it to read, that the clause "should not be so construed as to impair the privileges of citizens of other States," &c.

Mr. ROBERTS objected to this amendment, as it would change the whole principle of the proviso, and give the resolution such a shape as would compel him to oppose it.

Mr. BROWN maintained his motion at some length. Had the resolution come from the other

Mr. TALBOT conceived that the amendment proposed by Mr. BROWN would be mischievous and produce no good. On so great a subject, and to settle a question so momentous, he was willing side the hand of compromise; but it was certainly to give up something, and hold out to the other a question which every one was to settle with his own conscience.

tion, it was negatived without a division. The question being taken on Mr. BROWN's mo

Mr. TRIMBLE moved to amend the proviso, by adding thereto the following clause:

And provided, also, That the 8th article of the said constitution [the article authorizing the establishment tion, in conformity with the provisions thereof, is subof banks,] shall be annulled as soon as said constituject to amendment.

This amendment was rejected without debate, and without division.

The question was then put on ordering the resolution to be engrossed and read the third time; and was decided by yeas and nays as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Barbour, Edwards, Elliott, Holmes of Maine, Horsey, Johnson of Kentucky, Johnson of Louisiana, Lowrie, Morril, Parrott, Pleasants, Roberts, Southard, Stokes Talbot, Taylor, Thomas, Walker of Georgia, and Williams of Tennessee-19.

NAYS-Messrs. Brown, Chandler, Dana, Dickerson, Eaton, Gaillard, Holmes of Mississippi, King of Alabama, King of New York, Knight, Lanman, Macon, Mills, Noble, Otis, Palmer, Ruggles, Sanford, Smith, Tichenor, Trimble, Van Dyke, Walker of Alabama, and Williams of Mississippi-24.

So the resolution was rejected.

MILITARY PEACE ESTABLISHMENT.

The Senate then resumed the consideration of the bill from the other House to reduce the Army, and the amendments proposed thereto by the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Tennessee, submitted to the Senate the considerations which induced the committee to recommend the modifications which they had reported to the bill. He went into a detailed view of the subject, of the posts necessary to be maintained, the proper distribution of the forces, &c., to show that the service required the number of regiments proposed by the substitute; also to show that the staff ought to be constituted as proposed by the amendment; that the cost of the organization proposed by the substitute would be but a small sum more than that proposed by the other House; that they had varied from the bill of the other House only in features which they deemed of importance, leaving others, to some of

which there was some objections, as the other House had passed them.

The principal objection which Mr. WALKER, of Georgia, had to the details of this bill, or the amendment, was the amalgamation of the ordnance corps with that of the artillery; to show the inexpediency of which, he offered a few arguments, and added some observations on the impolicy of the whole plan of reduction, to which he was opposed, conceiving it incompatible with considerations of true economy, and for which he should vote with reluctance.

Mr. TICHENOR offered his views at large on the subject of reduction, and of the modes proposed; and also submitted a number of remarks on the present organization of the Army, in its supply department particularly, to show its great and unexampled excellence, both in efficiency and economy; also, to prove the inexpediency of consolidating the ordnance and artillery corps; and in favor of leaving the system established in 1815 relative to the ordnance department untouched.

Mr. DANA objected to that clause of the amendment which proposes to merge the ordnance department in the artillery, as it proposed to abolish a separate superintendence and control of the public military property, and the responsibility which ought to attach to those officers discharging those duties, and explained his views at some length; he preferred the provision in the bill of the other House.

Mr. WALKER, of Georgia, moved to strike out the 4th section of the amendment which merges the ordnance in the artillery, giving the President power to select artillery officers to perform the present ordnance duties, giving them extra pay therefor, &c., and to insert in lieu thereof a clause to retain the ordnance corps as at present established. Mr. TRIMBLE opposed this motion, and spoke to obviate the objections which had been urged by Messrs. DANA and WALKER against the proposed consolidation of the two corps, and referred to its operation and effect to show its expediency in the organization of our Army.

Mr. Oris advocated the motion to amend, being always in favor of maintaining existing establishments which there were not strong and clear reasons for changing, which reasons did not exist for the present change, but on the contrary they were adverse to it; he would therefore prefer the provision of the other House in preference to the amend

ment.

Mr. WILLIAMS, of Tennessee, explained the difference of cost in the two plans, showing that the mode proposed by the committee would make a saving of $82,000; that, besides this reason, the ordnance corps wanted revision, and spoke to show that the duties would be better discharged by an amalgamation; that it would practice the artillery officers in the performance of those duties, &c.

Messrs. WALKER, of Georgia, TICHENOR, and TRIMBLE, severally spoke repeatedly to enforce their views of this matter of detail.

The question being taken first on striking out the 4th section, it was negatived-yeas 18, nays 19. The bill was then laid on the table.

THURSDAY, February 22.

SENATE.

Mr. WALKER, of Alabama, presented the memorial of the convention convened pursuant to the act of Congress "to enable the people of the Alabama territory to form a constitution and State government," in behalf of the people of the State of Alabama, suggesting the expediency and policy of annexing to that State so much of the country lately ceded by Spain as lies west of the Appalachicola river, and declaring their consent to such annexation; and the memorial was read, and laid on the table.

Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee on Public Lands, to whom the subject was referred, by resolution of the 6th December, reported a bill to designate the boundaries of a land district and for the establishment of a land office in the State of Indiana; and the bill was read, and passed to a second reading.

Mr. RUGGLES, from the Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the bill supplementary to an act passed on the 5th of April, 1820, entitled "An act for the relief of John Harding, Giles Harding, John Shute, and John Nichols," reported the same without amendment.

Mr. NOBLE, from the Committee on Pensions, in pursuance of a resolution of the 15th instant, reported a bill for the relief of Dean Weymouth; which was read, and passed to a second reading.

Mr. SMITH, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the petition of John Slocum, made a report, acompanied by a resolution, that the prayer of the petitioner be not granted, and that he have leave to withdraw his petition.

Mr. SMITH, from the same committee, to whom was referred the petition of John Cahoone, made a report, accompanied by a resolution, that the prayer of the petition be not granted, and that the petitioner have leave to withdraw his papers.

Mr. SMITH, from the same committee, to whom was referred the resolution of the 12th of December to inquire into the expediency of amending the judiciary laws, so as to authorize writs of error in criminal cases, reported that it is inexpedient to legislate on the subject; and the report was read.

The bill to authorize the Commissioner of the General Land Office to remit the instalments due on certain lots in Shawneetown, in the State of Illinois; and the bill giving the right of pre-emption to William Doak and Noble Osborne; were severally read the second time.

The Senate proceeded to consider the report of the Committee of Claims on the memorial of Bartholomew Shaumburg; and in concurrence therewith, resolved that the prayer of the petitioner ought not to be granted.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the select committee on reducing the allowances authorized by law for the two Houses of Congress, and for the Executive Departments; and, on motion by Mr. BARBOUR, it was laid on the table.

A message from the House of Representatives informed the Senate that they have passed the bill which originated in the Senate, entitled "An act for the relief of Samuel Tucker, late a Captain in the

Navy of the United States;" with an amendment. They have also passed a bill, entitled "An act to fix and equalize the pay of the officers in the Army of the United States;" a resolution providing for jails in certain cases, for the safe custody of persons committed under the authority of the United States; and a resolution for the appointment of a joint committee to report the subjects proper to be acted on during the present session; in which amendment, bill, and resolutions, they request the concurrence of the Senate.

MILITARY PEACE ESTABLISHMENT. The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the bill, entitled "An act to reduce and fix the Military Peace Establishment of the United States," together with the amendment reported thereto by the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. DICKERSON proposed to amend the said amendment by striking out of section nine, lines one, two, and three, the words "that there shall be one judge advocate with an annual salary of

two thousand dollars.

Mr. DICKERSON said, if the amendment of the Committee on Military Affairs, to the bill sent from the House of Representatives, proposed an equal reduction of the army with that bill, and an equal reduction of the officers of the army, he should prefer it to the bill, because it proposed some improvement in the organization of the force to be retained; but this, said he, is far from being the case. The army, as proposed by the bill, is composed of skeleton regiments, but that proposed by the amendment is a much nearer approach to an army of officers. The reduction is to fall chiefly upon the non-commissioned officers and privates. The nearest approach we can make to the bill, except in organization, the better. Retrenchment is the object, and it ought to fall in due proportion upon the most expensive part of the army. But, sir, we know that a considerable part of the Senate is opposed to any reduction of the army, and we have just heard a gentleman say, upon this floor, he would willingly vote for an indefinite postponement of the bill.

The army which it is proposed by the amendment to retain in the service, although unnecessarily large, and calculated to add to the embarrassments of our exhausted Treasury, is not such as to excite any alarm as to the liberties of our country, although history furnishes us with numerous instances of revolutions, effected by armies of no greater numbers. But, the exertions which have been made, and I fear successfully made, to produce a revolution in the public mind, upon the subject of standing armies in time of peace, I will confess, fill me with apprehension that our liberties after a war or two more are to be controlled by our standing armies. The apathy of the people upon this subject, to judge from their silence, would indicate that their former jealousies of permanently standing armies, by some strange influence, had been put to rest forever; and if so, the fundamental principles of our free Government

FEBRUARY, 1821.

will soon be abandoned for something more splendid. The presses, once the guardians of our liberties, are now silent upon this subject, or advocate the present establishment of the army; and not a breath is heard against it except upon the floor of Congress.

A respectable army in time of peace, by which at present we are to understand a force of about 12,664 men, is spoken of with as little concern as if such an establishment was of the essence of our Government.

Parents calculate to educate their sons to the profession of arms, as a provision for life, as they would do to the profession of medicine, law, or divinity.

Many who have provided for their sons in the army, and many who wish to provide for their sons in the army, find their minds strangely altered upon this subject; and they begin to view as chimerical and ridiculous their former fears of a military government. If we may judge of the future by the past, the standing army is to make a most rapid progress in this country. Every circumstance attending the army indicates this, but people, who must bear the burden. In thirty years excites little apprehension in the minds of the from this time an army of 50,000 men will be considered as a very moderate peace establish

ment.

If we succeed in reducing the army now, it will not be because it is against the genius of our Government to keep up such an establishment in time of peace, but because our revenues fail us; it will be because a resort to measures calculated to save the army, as at present established, would not be exactly calculated to save ourselves. Loans, if frequently repeated in time of peace, are pernicious and dangerous expedients. Direct taxes would lead to certain inquiries which might be extremely troublesome to us who are responsible for the expenditure of the public moneys. We shall be told, that, with a surplus of five millions in our Treasury four years ago, we have, in time of profound peace, been obliged to borrow three millions last session, and must borrow more this-for no taxes can save us from this necessity.

I should wish to see the army reduced to five thousand men in time of peace, when no enemy threatens to molest us, even if our finances were in the most prosperous train. But a reduction which principle would render proper, our empty Treasury will render necessary; and but for this necessity no reduction would take place. If our country was not in distress-if our finances were not embarrassed, the army, as at present established, would be permanently fixed upon us. No efforts of those who think such a force unnecessary for our defence, or dangerous to our liberties, would have the least avail. The peace establishment would go on to increase, but never to decrease, from this time forward.

The time was, about twenty years ago, when a certain party made prodigious clamors against standing armies in time of peace; but times have altered, and I fear we have altered with them.

For my own part, however, I like to look back