The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-04-28

reported back tho 0M 10 povide for bringing home to
soldiers Of country who killed in battle. who
died in Mexico during the present war; with recon-
mendaticn that b. laid upon the table; sxreed TO-
MI B. alsO reported BILL TO establish arsenal of
construction Atalanta, Georgia read twice, and
feed to the Committee Of the Whole on the state of the
Union.
Mr. also reported bill to amend an act entitled .An
act supplementary 70 act entitled act to provide
for the prosecution of the existing between the Uni
ted States and the republic OF Mexico. and for other
purposes which he asked to have put upon its passage
now.
The bill (Which ready provides for the repeal of
the provso in the above entitled BILL by which the Pres
to select one major general and two brgader gen
erals TO be retained in the service the remainder to be
Mr. BURT addressed the House in explanation of the
bill reported, saying that the country was expecting
that, under .6e pt0vso q he sst Of The 18th Of June
the United States to select from the two major generals
one. and fom the four bryader generals two who shall
be retained in the service and this to be done with
This provieo anticipates the action of the government
and viii reduce the army to peace -mlsry essaCtsn
msnt psshaPs sooner than i should be done Insrs
will Be NO alternative either Gen. Scott Or Gen Taylor
must be discharged from the service unless me present
bill he passed BY which the provso referred to is pro.
no disposition on the part OF the House deprive present
any enc of our brave generals Of his commission, and
dismiss him altogether from the service.
mOVCu
the Whole on the state of the Union adding that if the
bill passed. effect would be exactly to double the
Der Of major generals and brgadier generals which.
from experience, found to be sufficient for the SER
vice in time Of peace and as matters stood at the
MI BURT If the bill is to be referred to the Com.
mee OF the Whole the state OF the Unon to take IFS
regular course in the calendar it will not be reached
during the session and therefore the House
gentlemen mean to reject the bllf they mean to su
perinduce the necessity of thrusing of brave
major generals out OF the service, let them vote for this
MI Bolts would be surprised if the House should
refuse that this bill should be put Immediately upon its
passage He recaptulated the provisions of the act OF
June rs 1885, and thought it not intended at first
9 yyoa
and thus either General Scott General Taylor would
be necessarily deprived of his commission upon the ra
fcaton of the treaty He could not bring himself the
belief that It was the desire OF the House to lodge such
discretion this in the President of the United States
for from the recent date OF his commission it would
cessary result in the dismissal of General Taylor One
of the friends of the President had said that he desired
that no such discretion should be lodged in his hands,
and he really did not think the President himself could
Mr. JONES, of Tennessee hored the bill would be re-
ferred II the treaty should be ratified was it for the
Congress to say which Of our major generals shall be
exercising the appointing power vested by the constitution
in the President of the Omitted States He agreed with
the gentleman from Virginia, that this the proper
time to discuss the question of this reduction of the army
and therefore he desired the reference
Mr. STANTON was sorry to hear his colleagues voice
against the immediate passage of the bill He was
that this side OF the House could desire the
dismissal Of either Of these distinguished generals When
the act OF lS46 was passed the great battles of Taylor
had not been fought He doubted the propriey Of
dlsmssing at all from the service either Gen Taylor
Cen Scott; and for himself he said, he would be in favor
OF retaining them both as long as they might live.
MI. HOUSTON. Of Alabama, said: AS he intended to
vote to commit this bill to the Committee of the Whole
the state Of the Union. he felt called upon reply to the
remarks OF the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr.
BuRT.l and the gentleman from Virginia, lMr Boris
He could not agree with those gentlemen in their posi-
ton. that to refer bill to Committee of the Whole
understand the pi.s S"' u Ns TINS h6d s ga and
ne desired to protest against such doctrine Gentlemen
need not warn the House of the effect OF particular voes
1t is TO be presumed, at least that members understand
not only the rules OF the House, but also their duty to the
country. .te s5s3
If it be the defeat of bill 80 to refer it, why he would
ask, all other bills referred Appropriation bills II
Bulls" and others of the utmost importance are so refer
red and he had yet learn that such reference was
dsss 's o. a 4. s 1ays that effect
hind other matter the calendar, that it will not be
reached during the session.
Mr. HOUSTON SAID he was aware of the existence
and terms OF the rule referred but gentlemen surely
expected to do more than pass the appropriation bills be-
fore the adjournment Of this session There ample
ha Il II % used to pass hs war bills
fore and if this had majority of friends in the
House. no one could doubt but that it would be passed
before the adjournment; and this new doctrine whicA
tons. and not in the practice OF the House.
Mr.. H. said he did not intend, on the present
occasion, to enter into heightened argument up
on the merits Of this bill; he intended to vote
against it, and especially if pressed upon the House
out of time and place. and wshout proper discussion
without giving members opportunity TO examine into
its merits or dement's. The gentleman from Tennessee
Mr. STANTeN seemed astonished that any one on this
Side Of the House" should be found to against this
bill Does he mean to say that this side of the House u.s.
or should be. for Large standing army" II so, he
mistakes the position Of his political friends at least SO
far as he had any knowledge of their views upon this
subject Mr. H said if he had been able to understand
the position of the democratic party relation to the ar
my, 1t was that they wanted large army time of war,
but small one in time of peace. They desired small
peace establishment He did not intend say how large
He did not say how much, if any larger, it should be af-
ter this should terminate, than the old peace estab
shment That point was not now legitimately before
the House When it shall come up, however, he would
be readyto act and meet the responsibility growing OF
such action. He would repeat, however, now that he
was opposed to large army in peace and would vote
to reduce to aproper standard when the time shall
arrive which renders it necessary Our republican insti
tuons forbid the idea Of Glarge peace ary the spirit
and sentiment OF the people forbid it, M
We have been told that policy, as party requires
the passage Of this bill Are such Arguments to be pre-.
scented TO influence the votes of the representatives OF
reemen! Are party feelings to be appealed to for the
purpose of passing defeating bill regardless sof the