The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-06-05

cfcuon on FORMER occasiOnsj Tor instance uuihS inc
Seminole war, when the senator from Michigan
was, he Mr.. J) recolleced Alright, at the head Of
the War Department, Was he censured, them And
had he not done the thing IN 1912, when
Texas was inyadedi Yes-and was he eensured
thenf Just as II was proposed TO- censure him now,
by saying that he had acted irregularly, but the
troops called out by him taken into the service
and paid by the United States. IL was a very easy
thing to form cool judgment after the fact has oc-
CURED. The tidngs of the victories Of the 9Th and
9Th OF May came upon some in that chamber
with unexpected delight The whole Union
beat with anxlons expectation Of the fate
Of their army Men high in authority con-
ceiyed that there was imminent danger, even
after these victories; at all events before IL
Gen. Gaines had had the means to send relief to
Gen. Taylor then. and had not sent il, and the
army had been cut up, all would have been indig-
nant in the extreme and the senator from Michigan,
acting under right impulse, would have been
among the first 10 call him TO account Selfdefence
was the first law Of nature. In conflict with for
eign power, the nation was one man. Force, In
such cases, employed in spite OF law--instnc-
lively With entire respect, he would state that the
amendment OF the senator from Arkansas was quite
irrelevant IL assumed that there had been certain
correspondence. Why should they step in and ex-
ereise in advance the functions Of the Exeeutivel
This call for inquiry made at the instance OF
the senator from Michigan himself alone. What
was It's ostensible object To prevent the muster of
INCH hulnOrlty. Dut lndl COulu not De tl-
fected by the resolution. The act was either
Oficer-llke unofhcer-like. IL was for the
Executive to order a court-martial in such
case. But the Executive had sanctioned the
acts in question! General Gaines would say TO
the court-martal; al did the same thing in 1886,
in lS42-sanctioned by the President-sanctioned
by the War DePartment-sanctioned by Cong ress.
And IN this very letter disappearing OF one OF my
orders, the others sanctioned ~ In what an
awkward predlcament, then, would the Executive be
placed If General Gaines trial before a court
martial He did not want to step in between the
secretary and President and this ma or general.
Let them settle the matter II they had anything to
settle How did the senator from Virginia Mr..
ARCHER know that the President would not order
court-martlai
Mr.. ARCHER. He has not done so.
Mr.. JOHNSON. Is that proof that he will not
eral Scott and the department. II had been said in
the newspapers that there was an angry correspond
ence going on; but he did not know anything Of
that But was il designed 10 legislate General
Scott out of Office Was il intended % teach hi m
how TO conduct his correspondence Was he 10 be
instructed to write only in honied sentenced If
General Scott had acted wrongly, let the Executive
call him to account. The President must assume
that responsibility. He (Mr. j. would leave the
whole matter in the hands Of the Executive.
Mr.. WEBSTER followed. He dissented from
the broad ground taken by the last speaker in de-
IcnCc OF merely OeCduse war existed.
He did not suppose that IN the history of free gov
eminent from the earliest time down TO that memoir
able hour when Washington was called on 10 as
sumo military authority for the public 90 ed that that
power was ever given except for the defence and
security Of the general veal He felt convinced that
his friend, who was good lawyer, would, on rehec-
ton, revise his opinion. Under the constitution
which sedulously guarded against military power
which every where exhibited such dread of it
they could raise armies, but had nothing do with
the militia, except in of invasion or insurrec-
ton, or TO aid IN the execution Of the law And was
the whole sum of Il only this-that the constitution
and laws are TO be only general rule, and that
above that there is another and paramount law' He
was sure that the senator did not mean to assert
such principle.
Mr.. ARCHER. He has asserted it very often in
the course Of his speech.
Mr.. WEBSTER. SIR
Mr.. ARCHER. He has asserted it very often
in his speech.
Mr.. WEBSTER. If he had not, should not
have felt constrained to make these remarks. Mr..
w. then went on to refue the argument of the sena
tor from Maryland. He rejoiced in the successes
be too dearly bought Military glory was valuable
only when was achieved under the constitution and
laws. He had no applause TO hestow ON victories
gained above the law. Their own rights and liber-
ties were to be protected. That protection was in.
hnitely more valuable than the successful issue of
any udttic. n men might be found able
repair the disasters Of defeated army: but who
was he, If they suffered the great fundamental prin,
ciples OF civil liberty to be thrown down. who was
he who should rebuild themi After some additional
remarks, the honorable senator concluded by point
ing out the evil consequences which might have re-
suited from this unauthorized call. Had the gen.
eral been younger and more ambitious man, in
stead OF sending the troops, he would have led them
and, instead OF leading them to the theatre of war
he might have taken them whittier his own ambi-
ion directed
Mr.. JOHNSON, of Maryland, rose to reply.
Mr.. ARCHER. Will the gentleman stand lit.
tie farther back | wish to hear him distinctly.
Mr. JOHNSON. Does the senator desire to re-
ply to me?
Mr.. ARCHER. do
Mr. JOHNSON. We'll, then, you had better pro-
coed now.
Mr.. ARCHER shall.
Mr. JOHNSON. Then to give you an opportu-
nifty, and as desire to respond, move that the
Senate dourn
The motion was put and negatved.
Mr. ARCHER then signifed that he waived his
right of reply.
Mr. JOHNSON proceeded to reply to the senator
from Massachusetts. He alleged that there were
cases in which the constitution and laws were ne
cessarily silent. Did the senator deny that
Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, do
Mr.. JOHNSON. Then we are at issue
Mr.. WEBSTER. Stale your case and will re-
ply.
Mr.. JOHNSON. Well, then, suppose that the
army of the United States was in danger of being
overwhelmed by vastly superior force would il
not be the duty of general in the position of Gen
era Gaines to fly to its add Would the senator
himself not have gone to the aid of the army
Mr.. WEBSTER. Certainly.
Mr. JOHNSON. Under what law?
Mr.. WEBSTER. The law of duty.
Mr.. JOHNSON. All! under the same law Cen
erar Gaines acted.
Mr.. WEBSTER. Not at ALL
Mr.. JOHNSON. WHY mott
Mr.. WEBSTER. Proceed, and | will answer
you.
Mr.. JOHNSON then went on to defend his posi-
ton
Mr.. WEBSTER replied. There was no analogy
between the case of an individual citizen
rushing to the scene of danger and that of a
general of the army ordering troops to be
raised. He (Mr w, stated that he would
have gone to the aid of the army in a supposed
case. And he was always ready to 90 as far as
the arhest, and stand as long the most stable in
the defence of the country. But voluntary act OF
vi NJ nj III -