The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-05-07

The Republic to attempt defence Of the executive branch
OF the government by charging the democratic party in
Congress with denying and withholding the means ne
ccssary TO control the Indians The specific action
which the Republic lays stress is the failure of Con-
gfess al It's last session to appropriate the entire amount
OF the large sum demanded by the War Department for
The next fiscal year. which does commence until The
frs, day of next July We confess that if Congress
tailed to make adequate appropriations for the army after
The aoh OF June next then the Legislative branch of the
government will be properly shargeabe with the results
which may follow after that time. from the want of ade
quaIe at the command of the Executive But we
must insist that in that event. the democratic party
in Congress cannot be held responsible unless il be
shown that they defeated necessary appropriations We
shall examine fully into this matter, and publish the re-
suit OF the examination In the mean lime however we
must say that the result whatever may be- cannot take
Oft from the executive branch of the government the re-
sponsby for those depreda,ons which have been com
mtted up 10 the present time for we feel confident that
we can prove, with the facts already in possession
that the recommendations OF the Executive in that behalf
have been fully complied with for the last and current
fiscal years.
During the first session Of the last Congress- Mr. Da
Wis OF mississippi chairman of the Senaies Commit
tee on Military Affairs reported BILL in conformity with
The wishes Of General Taylor and Mr. Crawford, to in
crease the rank and file OF that portion of the army sery
ing on The frontiers, which authorized the Executive at
its discretion TO increase the number of prva,es in each
company thus serving TO seventy four The bill was
passed by the Senate and sent to the House. where
referred 10 the Military Committee Of that body Of which
Mr. Burt IA democracy was chairman. MIR. Burt reported
back the bill with an amendment framed as we gather
from the proceedings accordance Nth the pushes of
General Iaylor and Mr.. Crawford. That amendment
authorized the Executive, al his discretion, to mount
and equip the infantry serving the western
frontier. When the bill, thus amended, was sent
back TO the Senate, Mr. Rusk, senator from Texas
prophesied that it would be inadequate. This gave
rise to debate, in which Mr. Davis, OF Mississippi,
stated his opinion, that the bill would be totally
inadequate, while he sustained athcr than the frontier
should lose everything) the ground that recon-
mended yMe Executive. His remarks find them
reported in the Uaon of June H. 1885, contain the fol.
lowing statements;
In the report of the Secretary Of War this year. he asks
Tor an addition TO The rank and e which granted the
BILL and his suggestion is carried in the amend
The House. giving him authority u mount certain portions
OF The Infantry Now, let
me say as al the beginning of this debate this NINE
but Is the proposition of the Secretary oWa The
ltAds mistakes much IL he regards this
being favorie measure with / objected to it, and
among other reasons because believed would be more
expensive than to employ regularly organized cavalry 1t
~it think, cost more than, man Tor man, permauen
mounted men, from the great waste Of horses and equip
nents which would result from their casiona employ.
rnent by infantry am in favor of the creation OF rcsi
ment OF cavarywould prefer ii to this but do think
the plan is 50 utterly obnoxious the represents
"There is who than myself can synp ahize
with the senator from Texas in regard the difficulties
counered by his frontier constituents. i ready and
have been anxious TO organize force peculiarly adapted
the defence But Sec rotary OF War presents
plan, feel bound consider his
opposite my wish, and state, chairman of the
committee, what there Is in favor of his plan Il
Of candor and justice which due from him Bot
sir, reduced to this position. Shall refuse or con-
sent the amendment Of the House Shall we, between
the two houses lose the whole bill Shall deprive the
frontier OF The advantage which that bin gives and stake
all the hazard OF raising mounted force fer
which consider imminent hazard agree with the
senator in the necessity for cavalry but willing
this bill should fail do expect hou se OF
army. against the recommendation of the President and
Secretary of War"
Mr.. Hunter, OF Virginia, also took part in this debate
We copy the following from his remarks:
"Mr. President. I concur entirely with the senator
from Texas In all that he OF the necessity and
duty OF providing for the defence OF frontier The
whole question between IL, what ufcieDt provision
for that purpose The same argument that lie
would be equally good il we augment the army TO
20 O0O 30 0OJ, 40 900 troops The question would still
be the same, whether this Is sufficient number. Now
take it for granted that the specified In this
bill has been based upon the commentator of the War
DE and upon proper examination OF the subject
by those who particularly charged with it and II they
,hnk that this is enough. disposed think that 1t
enough am military SO lar IRON arguing the
question OF Executive discretion am arguing the question
of what cent number Of force enable the Execu.
tive discharge that duty. do
than enough The bill is raises enough under
stand, according judymen of the War Department.
therefore voting, in sustaining this bill, for what
suppose be a sufficient provision for the protection
the frontier and what suppose tba War Department has
considered a sufficient provision. Whenever IL Is shown
force sufficient, shall readily Tor
additional increase"
Here we have Mr.. Davis. OF Mississippi. IA dcmocat)
and Mr. Huper, Of Virginia, "a democrat, sustaining the
ecuive. while Mr. Rusk, OF Texas. (anoher democra,)
objected TO it, not upon the ground OF unwngness to
protect the frontier, but with prophetic knowledge that
the proposed by the Taylor administration would
prove, as they have Proved totally inadequate. Mr.,
Clay as we know, sustained the views OF Mr. Rusk, on
the ground that he had the opportunity. from long expe
rence 10 be better informed on the subject than any
other person.
No member OF the wing party took any part in this
debate Messrs. Davis, Hunter, and Rusk (all demo-
cras) alone spoke and all OF them in favor of giving
the Executive the TO protect the frontier from In
dian ourages The bill was passed and the Executive
obtained all 4, demanded for the protection OF the from