Weekly national intelligencer., 1848-04-29

major generas COMMISSION had not then been fought nc
he did not believe would be their pocy speak
ing party in any other point Of vew he knew not ina
il would be consistent with the gratitude due for the services
of those distinguished men, dismiss either Of them from the
position which they have attained. He had hesitation 70
announce his disposition to retain both of them long they
lived.
Mr.. JONES. | am not for that--that's certain.
Mr.. STANTON. With the prestige Of their great SER
vices about them he would attempt dismiss them from
the service under the operation Of that bill.
Mr.. HUUSTON, of Alabama, could not agree with the
gentleman from South Carolina Mr. Bunr) that refer the
bill TO the Committee Of the Whole the state of the Union
would be equivalent 10 its rejection He did not UNDER
stand e practice Of this House All appropriation bills were
necessarily referred to the Committee OF the Whole the
state Of the Unon and he had yet learn that they
referred for the purpose of defeating them.
Mr.. BOTTS desired permission TO explain. The gentle
man pm Alabama that rule existed by which
bills were placed the calendar in the order Of their reference
and h appropriation bills could be taken up out of their
der gng them the precedence others that might have
been first reported IT, them this bill should go the Com
mttee " Ne Whole would teke misplaced behind all others,
and prohfhy'it would not he reached this session..
- Mr., HOlsTON aware. the rule rsiszed %
gave the Committee of the Whole the Of the Union
power to take up appropriation bills in preference to Others
but they surely expected before the adjournment do more
than pass the appropriation bills. They surely would have
time to take up the appropriation bills and the bills, and
to act upon this lkewe, il it had sufficient number OF
friends this floor H did intend this time enter
upon the merits OF this Jul but his impression that he
for of the which had been given by the gentle
from Tennessee (Mr srASToS) his motives for vot
ing for it. That gentleman eemed asonshed that any body
should be found to vote passage of this bill and he
said these distinguished geners had rendered important
vices the country for which hey should be retained Did
the gentleman from Tennessee Intend say that these major
generals and bgader generals appointed with the view
that they not to render the distinguished services
That seemed TO him to be most extraordinary argument
Because they have endeedhese the House
of Representatives of the Congress the United States had
not anticipated such extraordinary services therefore they
ought not to be made subject to the law of 1876 Why, it
expected by every member of Congress by whom the
of 1916 passed that every officer, every kind-ocers
Of companies and of regiments well general officers
would render distinguished services these officers have
done.
But there another point Of view in which this subject
presented ITSELF He had been present in this House pre-
vious occasions when propositions made reduce the
army and he knew that would be Of the difficult
undertakings in which they could engage reduce the army
at the termination of the to peace establishment and it.
therefore, they gave up the benefit of the provision of the law
of ls46 they would throw themselves back position from
which they would have to start anew and engage in
test with the army and all its power and influence In such
he feared they should fail to reduce the army
proper peace establishment they had heretofore failed in
contests of that sort.
He did not intend this time upon heightened
discussion respecting the merits of this BILL of any PROPOSE
ton that might grow out of it. He desired merely TO protest
against the position of the gentleman IRON South Carolina,
(Mr BURT) that to commit this bill to the Committee OF the
Whole the Of the Union would be equivalent to the
defeat of the bi He understood very differently. But
when the proper time should come he assured the House
that he should give his vote for the reduction Of the army
peace establishment.
Mr.. STANTON asked the gentleman from Alabama if he
thought when the treaty should be ratified that such
Gen. Taylor and Gen. Scott should be dismissed from the
service Of the United States He desired categorical
answer.
Mr. HOUSTON replied that the law of ls46 created Offices
with the distinct provision that they should be dispensed with
the close OF the war and the officers brought down TO
specified number. He would not whether be would dis
charge General Taylor General Scott, He would not say
who he would discharge But the law Of 1916 which created
these Offices made provision for the reduction Of the major
generals 10 one and the bgade generals TO two and every
knew accepting those offices that al the close OF the
war the law required the President discharge that duya
duty which he had doubt the President would discharge
This law Of ls46 would be went beyond the major
generals and bgsder generals and provides for dsbandng
the army except necessary peace establishment. Bot II
they passed this bill he would inquire IL present army
10 be kept in the public service
Mr.. BOTTS thought he could relieve the mind Of the
gentleman from Alabama If this bill should pas into law
and repeal the original provso TO which REFERS the scts
which created the volunteer forces would operate upon ihem
and they would go Of the service matter OF course at
the end Of the
Mr.. HOUSTON, Of Alabama. The gentleman from Vir
gna said the volunteers would be dsbanded the end OF the
Well but this provso relates to than to major
generals and he would ask, il the officers for their brilliant
services be retained for life what they should do with
the men, who had rendered valuable services 10 the county
for Of only Ss month The men by thou
sands had undergone all the hardhps and trials and dangers
of the campaign for the poor pance OF SS month, bot they
10 be dsbandedhey TO be thrown their own
resources There was feeling exhibited for them Bot
when officers who received high salaries major generals and
bgadr generals and other officers Of high rank, TO be
dismissed when they became unnecessary the sympathy Of
gentlemen in this House greatly excited in their behalf
Now he held that the 10 be discharged a the
officers should 20 We have too many officers for
peace establishment
Mr.. STANTON was understood TO remark that the very
men for whom the gentleman from Alabama sympathized
would not side with that gentleman in his opposition 10
two distinguished major generals.
Mr.. HOUSTON asked the gentleman from Tennessee II
he in favor Of disbanding the army and excepting the
offcersl
Mr. STANTON replied that the army would necessarily
be reduced the end Of the but they would dlsappont
the hopes Of the country they would shock the feelings Of the
country and the patriotism Of the people, and they would not
have the appreciation Of the soldiers themselves who fought
under Gen. Taylor and Gea Scott il they dismissed either Of
them.
Mr., HOUSTON said the gentleman from Tennessee bad
given extraordinary In fact was no ans
wer al all He really at los, too, 10 know how the
gentleman from Tennessee had acertaned the state OF the
feelings Of the army respecting the dismissal Of Of the ma
jor generals The gentleman from Tennessee appeared to
presume that the men would want 10 be retained He
might presume that the officers would want to be etaed
the peace establishment either To say otherwise waf to
make an assault the officers for inmaion that
they dcsc to retain their pay when their services were not
required.
Mr. BURT was quite amazed, he was sure the House
must be- at the warmth which the gentleman from Ashama
was getting up in his bosom in relation to this matter.
leuu hat was