The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-06-27

the Offices OF the superintendents of the armores
Springfield and Harpers' Ferry.
Mr.; PRESTON replied that the Secretary Of War
hought that military officers much better fitted
Tor the duties than civil officers. Besides the substi-
luton was IN accordance witt the contemplated
ducion OF the expenses Of the Government.
mr nA iES then spoke in favor of striking out
second section, which enacts that the offices of tne
Perniendents OF the armories at Springfield and at
Harpers Ferry shall be abolished and that the duties
shall be performed by such officers of the Ordnance
corps as shall be designated by the Presidents and
his request, memorial was read showing the ill
treatment to which the armorers were subjected un-
der military rule at Springfield.
| Mr.. PRESTON reioIned and commended that
abuses IN those aTmoes the result more of the
regulations than the fact of there being military
perntendents IL injustice should be done To any of
the workmen. a statement could be laid before the
Ordnance Department; il satisfaction should not be
then rendered, an appeal might be made to the Secr,-
taTy OF War TO the President of the United States
Mr. YOUNG remarked that the superintendent at
Harpers Ferry had been dismissed and officer Of
the Ordnance Corps had been appointed to the place
II, therefore, the section should be stricken out as
moved by the Senator from Massachusetts, the mat
ter would be left precisely where it now was. To
avoid this, he would submit an amendment to the
motion Of the Senator, viz to strike out the sec
on and insert in lieu thereof that the duties Of the
olces of superintendent at the armores at Spring
held aid Harper's Ferry shall not be performed by
officers Of the Ordnance corps or other officers of the
army, but shall be conhded TO civil superintendent,
ol competent knowledge, as heretofore.
Mr. BATES accepted Of the amendment
Mr.. BENTON opposed it, and expressed himself
IN favor OF the section as contained in the bill.
Mr. CONRAD followed upon the same side.
M PHELPS said that, in his judgment, the estab-
shment should be under civil superintendent.
Mr. TAPPAN was in favor of striking out the sec
ton, and argued that none but mechanics were com
petent to superlntend these establishments.
vote fnr he
section but reserve to himself to decide hereafter
whether the armories ought to be under the control
of civil or military officers.
Mr. PRESTON remarked that it had been
beautifully said that " who rules DER freemen
should himself be free," and which was aptly
paroded, "who drives fat oxen should himself
be fat But was not an officer of the Ord
nance Department as fit to superintend the
morles as lawyer who could not make his board at
the bar, or a broken down politician They could
not pass law that the officer should be artisan |;
but here they proposed to take scientific from
the Ordnance Department, men of affairs, who
well qualified, from experience, to discharge the du
ties required.
Mr.. ARCHER said that, if it were true that mil
itary administration was for the public good Std
would be forever found that it would be irreconca-
Bile to the temper If those who were employed in the
armories; and as the feelings of these operatives
certainly entitled to respect he would vote for the
amendment
HUN llNd loN was opposed 10 III, as ne
thought that c mpetent men could be selected from
the Ordnance Department; and this would save the
expense OF employing civil officer
Mr.. SIMMONS did not regard the duties TO be
performed at the armores military operations, but
as mechanical; and to appoint military men to su-
perinend mechanics most singular therefore he
in favor of the amendment.
Mr.. SMITH, OF Connecticut, argued that if Co
yernment turned manufacturer, it must employ prac-
teal men to supeInted the armores.
(: MIR. ALLEN declared himself to be in favor of the
amendment.
Mr.. RIVE Els had learned from persons who resided
at Harper's Ferry that the military discipline in the
armory at that place had caused great dlssatisfac
ton, and he believed that it would produce rebellion
among the workmen, from time to time, SO long it
should be continued; therefore he hoped that the
amendment would prevail.
The question was then taken, and the amendment
of MIR Young agreed to-yeas 3d. nays la, as fol-
lows
YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Bates, Buchanan, Choate,
Clayton, Crafts, Fulton, King, Mangum, Miller,
Phelps, Porter, Rives, Simmons, Smith of Connectls
cut, Smith Of Indiana, Sprague, Tallmadge, Tappan
White, Woodbridge, Wright, Young-23.
NAYS.-Messrs. Barrow, Benton, Berrien, Con-
rad, Crittenden, Evans, Graham, Huntington, Linn,
McRoberls, Morchead, Preston, Walker, Wilcox
| IA.
Mr.. BUCHANAN mo ed to strike out the third
| sect, n as FLOWS
chases, sometimes called Commis-ary OF Purchases
shall be and the sane is hereby, abolished and the
duties thereof shall hereafter be performed by the
officers of The QuaItermasers Department with such
OF the officers and clerks attached TO the ur cha-
ing department shall be uuthoiized BY the Secretary
of Wa, aid under such regulations shall he pre-
scribed by the said Secretary undert the sanction
| the President OF tie United States
After debate, in which Messrs. BUCHANAN,
PRESTON, ARCHER CONRAD, and WALKER
| M rtl he IouW i'm
the negatve-yeas IL, nays II, as follows;
YEAS-M,ssrs. Allen, Bates, Buchanan, Fulton
King, Linn, Phelps, Stuith, of Indiana Tallmadge
| W alker, White and Youug-l2
NAYS + Mes,rs. Archer, Barrow, Benton Btr-
ren, Conrad Crafts, Crttcnden, Evans Graham,
Huntins ton Mansuai, Miller, Morehead, Preston,
Simmons, Tappan, and Wicox-l7
SO the amendment was rejected, and the Senate adj
journed