Arkansas intelligencer., 1848-03-11

render service TO the United States the reason of
the law had been respected, and It's object accom-,
PS',eo negligence and Improv idence, on the pa rt
OF the volunteer, in the cases of his horse had
been prevented and the good condition of the 40
irnai insured tor the time when his owner should
oe caiied upon to use him, in the service of The
CH''eo 0tates. And he could do no more wbe.
lher he had one horse or one hundred horses
w neither the volunteer. under these circumo.,r.
ces, then, had horse in acual possession. or not
or whether the horse, if so possessed were
sefVlcea6le, or net, neitEer advantage nor detri
meht could accrue TO the United States No ad-
vantage ~ IN actual possession, because the
horse could not be and used in the general service
NO detrlment, If moi actual possession, because.
the absence of object could not be iniurions
II It's presence were not useful. The only re-
qulrement which reason could suggust, or the law
insist upon was that the horse should be present,
and IN good condition, whenever lis owner should
De called upon 10 use him, in tho service of the
United States.
gain:-Snpp0se mounted volunteer to ha We
been arrested, for some alleged offence-and this
was no unusual case-and either while waiting
Tor trial, or for subsequent punishment to have
been IN confinement, for any given period of
tme-say for one or Two months. At the ex-
PIration Of his term of service, even at the
next payday. after his release from confinement
although that confinement had been his Just
punishment for some gross neglect of duty, or
other heinous offence-would he, or rigbtfulIy
could he, be questioned, whether he had kept
"a serviceable horse during the period of his
confinement! And if he answered in the negative.
could, or did that affect his pay? Certainly not.
AND trhy not! Because, while he was able, and
whenever called upon 10 render service, he had
always presented himself with ga serviceabe
horse;' and, thus, having satisfied The reason of
the law, and fulfilled its requirement. he was en-
titled 10 the full amount Of compensa lion it pro-
vided.
Although put in the form of supposition, as
sumo these TO be cases of>ractual occurrence.
They must be familiar to every officer who has
been associated with the Mounted Volunteer
Corps; and positively aver that many such, hav-
ing fallen under my personal observation, are
still vivid in my memory.
Again:-Suppose the Mounted Volunteer, and
MS horse, both. to have been wounded in battle;
and in such way that both were rendered unfit
for service, during two months! At the next
pa day. at the expiration of his term of SER
vice. when that Volunteer presented himself 10
receive his .'pay and allowances would he or
could ne rightfuIly, be questioned, to whether
he had kept "a serviceabIe horse,' during the
period OF his confinement in the Hospital, while
suffering the painful consequences of his gallant
ry? And even when, with flashing eye and curl
ing lip, be thundered an indignant negative in the
mlnish the amount of his pay! Certainly not!
IND rcdy not +? Because he, too, had complied,
alike with the spirit and the letter of the Law.
by always having ''a serviceable horse," while
he himself was able, and whenever called upon
10 render service.
If this we're question OF dollars and ceEts
only-ot mere pecuniary interest, the Pay
master would make it, by his narrow minded
construction of the Law. then might the United
States be deemed gamer by the failure Of the
Volunteer to keep horse, during any period of
his own personal disability. For, the estimated
cost 10 the government, of feeding a horse, being
Eight dollars q month, the absence OF the horse
during his owners illness, confinement other
personal disability, would leave, unexpended in
the military chest, proportional amount of
money. But the question, and the considerations
which must determine it, rest on very different
and far higher ground.
would, now, ascertain the relation which the
case of my late fellow prisoners bears to those |
have cited; and how far the principles involved
in them apply TO It. 1t appears that these prs-
Oners. like the individuals mentioned, had e~er
kept "serviceable horses" while they retained
personal ability 10 do duty; and had always pre-
sented themselves, thus furnished, whenever
called upon 10 render service TO the United States.
Nor did they lose even that personal ability will
ingly; but by the faithful discharge of duty, in
prompt and Jealous obedience TO orders-that
crowning virtue of a soldier In this may their
case be said to differ from some, at least of those
cited that their whole term OF service had been
unmarked-the esculcheon of their conduct had
been unlarnished, by neglect of duty, dsobedience
of orders. or any other serious offence. Their
soIdieriy department, throughout, IS avouched by
the fac; that they were "picked men," for the
important duty. in the performance of which they
were lost While, for degree and duration OF
suffering, their case stands without parallel.
In all good respects. then-in the performance
ofduty-in obedience to orders-in the endurance
of privation, hardship, and the extremity OF sur
fernu in the service Of their country-E the eye
of the Ld,o!-lhey stand on equal, if not higher
ground than the individuals cited; and, conso-
quentIy, have an equal, if not higher claim, to
the full amount provided by the Law.
When therefore, at the expiration OF their Pc
riod Of Imprisonment (Which the Law. as quoted,
assirniIates TO the term of their servce.) they
presented themselves to receive their "pay and
allowances" could they, rghlfully be questioned,
as to whether they had kept during the period OF
their Imprisonment, ''serviceabIe horscs!" And,
if they answered in the negative, could the an
swer affect the amount of their pay! As IN the
other cases cited, certainly not. And Ohy not!
Tha already oiv in the fOreOOn0 cases.