The Massachusetts spy, and Worcester County advertiser. [volume] ([Worcester, Mass.]) 1825-1831, 1826-04-19

rohfhdhd OF It's Oihcer.-Ihe question Whic
here arises, is. whether the United States ca
draw the militia Of State into the publ
sasvlce without its officerss The Constitution
D alter declaring that Congress has power t
provide in certain cases for calling for the mi
ltia, and TO provide for organizing, arming
, and disciplning them, declares, expressly
tnat the appointment Of the officers is reserved
10 me States 10 affirmance of this principle
me law OF Congress, under which this detach
meht Was made, directs that the officers shall
De appointed by the constitutional authority O.
NE respective States. These officers wee
therefore rghtfully appointed, as they were ap.
; pointed according 10 the Constitution. and the
concurrent provisions OF law under both Gov
ernments. BY what authority could they be
: separated from their troops9 The right oil
@nlla to be commandadby their ~Fss~--A,
has never to my knowledge been denied, nor
has 1t ever been contended, unless this requlsi-
ton Is proof of it, that officers of the militia
could be removed from their command TO give
) place to officers OF the United States. The mu-
tual rights of officers and men belonging 10 MI
llta to be united in public service, seems too
obvious orequre the aid Of argument. How,
then, could these troops, amounting, in num-
her and by organization, to a Major Generals
command, be drawn into the public service
without their officers, especially when those
officers had been assigned to their respective
commands by the authority of the United
*ates? The only answer have heard Civ
en-, is, that they were to be distributed upon
the sea coast, to perform garrison duty in the
'orts-and were TO pass under officers of the
United States in command of those forts, who
would have been outTanked, if the compile
ment d officers for division had been taken
into the service.
Is this sufficient reason for tiismssing from
heir command officers appointed under the
Constitution, and detached and assigned by
a special law Of Congress to the command !?
Will this justify separation OF officers and
men. and is it no violation Of an acknowledged
Constitutional right? Ii regimental, brigade,
and division officers, were not necessary Tor
the service, and were not intended to be TAX
"a into it, why were they detached? If the
men were TO be called out by companies, and
heir organization into larger bodies could be
dsregarded, why was the Executive required
18th by law and the order OF the Secretary
Of War, TO organize them into battalions, reg
ments, brigades and divisions f? Why, if il
was competent for an officer of the United
States to make call for large body Of troops
by companies, were not the 10000 men de-
tached and organised without a higher than
company officer? This ceremony of organ
izing them into all the grades. from compa-
MES up to divisions, and of appointing officers
| OF suitable rank TO command, would seem to
be a work OF supererogation, If these arrange
ments, in-iaking the troops into service, could
! be disregarded.
Besides, il mere distribution to different
/ 1t will Authorize breaking up a detached body
of troops, organized and Offered under an
Act of Congress, and separating the troops
| from their officers, then, in this widespread
county, having almost innumerable points of
exposure, it would require but little ingenui-
ty TO draw out the whole militia of State by
companies. dsregarding all higher organiza-
ton. Yes: it might be done without even
! This show OF reason -; fer the companies might
be distributed among the battalions and regi-
ments of the army of the United States, and
thus the course might be justified. But this
is not all: for, assuming the principle alleged
AS justification of the measure. as correct
If will still appear that the men had not their
complement Of officers; for the requisition de-
manded for the defence of Boston eight com
panies OF infantry, with lieutenant ;
and four of artillery, with major. Now,
eight companies of infantry would constitute
a regiment, and should have two battalion
officers, as well as Northumberland. The
same may be said of the troops assigned TO
Rhode-lsland.
/ Having now stated the grounds Of The FIRST
! objection, submit it to the Committee to de.
eide, whether the course pursued was conss-
tent with the rights of the militia, and wheth-
er the Executive was bound to execute the
order.
4 The next objection to the requisition for
foriy-one companies, is, that no constitution
4 al emergency existed at the time of the call,
which justified It. This ground of objection
was taken by the Executive of the State, and
has been a principal source of controversy
! and conflict OF opinion in relation TO this claim
will also state the reasons, as have under
stood them, upon which this opinion rested
TO do this, it will be necessary to advert to
the Constitution aud the laws Of Congress,
4 upon this subject. The Constitution declare:
that, s The Congress shall have power tc
provide for calling forth the militia, to exc
cute the laws OF the Union, suppress insurrec-
tions, and repel invasons." IL is manifest
from this language. that the power corfded
TO the United States over the militia, is linz
tied to the three exgencies mentioned III the
Constitution; and that one or tho othor o.
them must happen before the right OF calling
the militia into service exists; and so Con
gress seem to have considered it. In 1875
in the exercise of this power, Congress pass
ed law providing for calling forth the mi
litia to execute the laws when disobeyed, Il
suppress nsurrections, and TO repe invasions
!, Provision was, also msde for calling then
forth in cases of imminent danger ofinvasion
| A greater power than this has not been claim
ed by Congress, in any law that has ever beer
passed upon this subject. Receiving, then
the law OF '95, as the true exposition of con
sttutional power, shall ask the attention o
, the Committee to the state of facts as they
existed al the time General Dearborn made
: his requisition, and they will show the reason
by which the Executive was Influenced il