The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-08-17


In another letter Of the 9Th Of June, he incident
ally alludes again to this subject which he had fully
and clearly presented in that ofths 26th of May. In
the letter Of the 9Th of June he says II have nothing
To add to what said in my last letter to you Chat
of the 18th of Msy) in regard to retaining in SERVES
those men with you who have engaged for a less
term than year" In the letter referred to, and To
which he had nothing to add, the secretary had told
Gen. Taylor, in a manner that could not be misun-
derstoOd or misnterpreted, that these men were in
service under the law of 1875, and the Term Of their
service teas limited 10 three months.
Did the secretary in this letter Of the 9th Of June,
revoke the discretion given in his former letter in re-
gard to retaining the volunteers in service and SUI
persede II by positive order for their discharge
That cannot be pretended, for the direct contrary
clearly appears He says TO Gen. Taylor: " You
will not discharge until the end of their term those
who will not engage volunteers under the act Of
the 18th Of May last, il they be advantageously
employed in carrying on your immediate opera
tons"
The only remaining letter sent by the Secretary
Of War to Gen. Taylor before the Generals order
diseharging the volunteers, abiding in the remoIest
degree to that subject is dated the Goth of June.
With this letter was sent copy Of that TO Governor
Johnson of the 25lh, and the Secretary explicitly
refers TO his letter to Gov. Johnson as containing
'hs ris,Os Of the government upon the phOIs sutjsein
No one, IL is presumed, however embtsred his feel
ings may be towards the administration or the Sec
rotary Of War, will imagine that he has sufficient
ingenuity TO extract from either Of these letters
colorado pretert for the charge that the secre-
tary recognised the volunteers from Louisi-
ana TO be in service for six months, or
that he gave a positive order for Immediately dis
banding them. He Ieiterales his opinion that none
except volunteers under the act Of the 18th Of May
can be legally held TO than three MONTHS
and adds, "if the exigencies Of the service should
require their employment for this entire period you
t0H Of course retain them 10 The end thereof otherwise
they are to be discharged" These are all the
documents that have any bearing upon the point
under consideration, and they exhibit the entire
course Of the Secretary of War in relation to the
service and the discharge OF the Louisiana voun-
teers In our best judgment, they furnish an unan-
swerabe refutation Of the charge reeklessly made
and confidently reiterated that the secretary reeog
missed the volunteers to be in service for six months
and afterwards changed his views upon that sub
ieet nor are they eas conclusive in dsproying the
allegation that he at first gave discretionary instruc.
tons for retaining them for six months, and there;
after revoked them by positive order for their i'm
mediate discharge. II we have not mistaken the
value of facts, and the cogency Of arguments, the
vindication OF the Secretary Of War upon this point
is triumphant.
At the risk Of making our article tedious by its
length, we will notice two other points Of at.
tack upon the administration, and in a particular
manner upon the Secretary Of War. Its said that
the secretary kne,o that the troops who SO CALAMITY
responded to General Taylor's requisition, and TO
the Unauthorized call Of General Gaines were yolun-
teers for six months.
1t is contended that the approval in the adiutan,
generals letter of the 18th of May, extended not
only to the sending Of part of the volunteers or
ganized by General Gaines, but to the terms on
which they had entered the service. Knowing the
fact as is alleged he did, that these men were en-
tering the service for six months it is insisted he
ought at once to have interposed his objection to
that term Of service. If the main fact on which
this charge is founded sustained or sustainable
there would seem to be some plausbility in the
charge. Ii would prove the ot-repeated allega.
ton that he is laundering secretary; but it would
show, perhaps, want Of sufficient promptness on
his part in correcting the plumbers of others. Blu,
that the secretary was informed of the terms on
which the volunteers entered the service in season
to have corrected the erroneous proceedings is de-
MED IF there is blame to be imputed to any one i,
does not rightly rest on him. II is assumed that the
letter from General Gaines, to which that of the ad-
Jotant general is reply, disclosed the fact that the
volunteers entered the service under an agreement
to serve six months General Cts. letter referred
to by the adjutant general, makes no such dsclo.
sure. General Gaines's defence to the charge of
an unwarrantable assumption Of power in calling
for volunteers precudes the de, that he had sent 10
Genera! Taylor man who could be held to any
service beyond three months. He assumes that the
situation Of General TayIor's army was so perilous
that he, as sort Of vcegerent had right to exer.
else the power given to the President by the act of
l795, to call out the militia. There could be NO
preence that troops thus called out could be held TO
serve for more than three months.
All the documents in relation to General Ga;nes,s
proceedings IN calling for volunteers are before the
public After digent search, we have not found
in those transmitted to the War Department, apy
disclosure of the fact that the troops sent by his in
terposltlon to General Taylor were volunteers for
sir months. ....... ... ..
Governor Johnson not only superin,ended in
prompt, spirited, and commendable manner the or
ganIzation of the four regiments from Louisiana
embraced in General Taylor's call, but under the
direction or sanction of the legislature he organized
and sent forward two additional regiments. When
did he give notice to the War Department that these
troops were organized in any other manner, or ex-
peced to serve on any other terms than those pre-
scribed by the provisions Of the law of 1895, If
an unusual course had been adopted--if the terms
prescribed by existing laws were set aside and an
attempt had been made to involve the general gov
eminent as party ina contract which it could not