Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1848-03-30
MIR. CALHoUN's SPEECH

ON THE TEN REGIMENT BILL.
The following sketch of the speech cf Mr..
Calhoun OF S. Z. on the Ten Regiment Bill, is
given BY - Washington Correspondent of the
Journal oSCommerce.
" Mr.. Calhoun said. that, after very careful
examination, he had not been able to find sim
gle argument in favor of passing this bill at this
time. Those who were in favor of it had over
looked the real condition of Mexico Neither
force nor intimidation were necessary. The
Government of Mexico was without an army
and without revenue, and the people were dis
tracted by factions The Government existed
only by our forbearance. The motive TO treat
was the same with Mexico as with us-to avoid
the annhation of her Government, which was
us much dreaded by us as by her.
"The danger was that the Government would
perish before it could ratify the Treaty. A sim
gle brigade could eStinguish it. We had an al
tentative, if she refused to ratify The treaty.
We could take the boundary without paying the
twenty millions. The bill would defeat itself.
1t would prevent peace, for it would embolden
the Puros party 10 perish III their attempt 10 an
initiate the government. 1t would also create
the impression at home that the treaty would not
be ratified, and be great prejudice TO business.
1t was not only useless braggadocia, but ii
would be mischievous.
He objected to the increased patronage it
would give to the Executives patronage al
bounties only would amount 10 two millions and
half of doldrs-for men would readily enlist
knowing that they would not be called on to 90
TO Mexico.
:" But he would be opposed to the BILL even if
the treaty were not in progress. 1t was part of
the policy Of the President 10 prosecute the war
vigorously. If we passed it, it would be a pledge
to the President to resume the war and carry it
on vlgorousy-a pledge that would never be
redeemed. nj lir boI
stamped that policy with Reproduction.
Tho policy OF menace was wrong. Itwould
have involved US in war with England, but for
the courage and lnognanmty of this body The
war with Mexico grew out of a menace--and
this body had no opportunity to interfere.
Another objection he had TO this bill: it
countenanced the Presidents system of military
or civil contributions nCilher Of which powers
the President had any right to exert lie had
no power to establish system of finance in
Mexico,- it was not TO be found in the war pow
er,-it was under no implied power--and if 1t
was, it must be exercised according TO the laws
of Congress.
'lf the power existed in Mexico it existed
here, too. Can the President lay lakes here by
virtue OF his power as Commanderin Chief?-
Has he the power to make appropriations OF
money in Mexico? He has exercised it. lie
now acts in two characters, one as President OF
the United States, and the other as possessed OF
high despotic power over Mexco-raising and
paying troops, &c. His power really was to con
tro the machine called the army--to direct it
and 1t was very narrow power. Even the rules
and regulations of the army were made by ieg.
isatve, not executive power. The conquerer
it was true, had q right to impose taxes. Blu
who, under our SYSTEM was the conquerer? No
the President not General SCott-bnt under ouI
system, it was the United States. The sover-
eighty OF Mexico being put down for time
our sovereignty took It's place, and carries with
it all the laws and the constitution of the sover-
eighty.
s. 1t was difficult to control our people they
were well fed, well clothed, and painting for ex-
element II was too easy to involve them in
war. Every care ought to be taken to avoid an
aggressive war. He hoped never to vote for one
The authority to exercise those powers should
have been asked of US by the President. lie
could not exercise them on his own Implication
but the implication should be drawn by Con
o.eSs"