The true Democrat., 1855-03-07
supply the demand from the States. Then we

cannot do that If we had accepted that pro-
 position to exchange the old arm for the ap-
 proved arm, all the arms now on deposit would
 be exhausted, and we should have nothing for
 national defense. We should have adopted
 that suggestion if we could, but it was found
 to be impracticable.
 Another proposition which was made was
 that the States should be allowed to send the
 useless arms to the national armories and have
 them reftted, and made useful to the country.
 The department informed the committee that
 it would cost eighty cents piece to convert the
 old musket into the new musket or, rather the
 flint lock into the percussion. When we came
 to add the cost of transportation to the armo-
 ries and back, we found that it would cost the
 States more than the arms were worth.
 MT. James. And then they would be good
 for nothing.
 MT. Jones, of Tennessee. The Senator says
 they would be good for nothing I do not know
 about that. There was, however, this difficult ty; the government would not agree to ex-
 change, because they had great many more
 arms with the States, on deposit, than were in
 the national arsenals. We could not agree to
 send them from the States to the national ar
 mories to have them reftted because it would
 cost more to send them there and back than 1t
 would to reft them. The amendment proposes
 to authorise the Governors of the States to sell the old arms for what they will bring, and
 reinvest the proceeds in'such arms as are used
 by the United States
 Mr. JOHNSON The Senator from Ten
 nessee remarked, in answer to the suggestion to
 insert Secretary of War;" that the arms be-
 longed to the States themselves and that he
 would not agree to take them from under their
 immediate jurisdiction and entire control. Am
 correct in that?
 Mr. Jones, of Tennessee That is my opin- ion.
 MT. JOHNSON. Then if they belong to
 the States entirely, what have we to do with the
 subject? Why are we legislating in regard to their sale? If the arms belong to the States,
 what right have we to say that they shall or
 shall not sell them? I cannot but believe that,
 if the authority to sell be given in this way, in
 many instances, in the different States, the arms
 on hand will be sacrificed. imagine that they
 are not so utterly useless now as the Senator
 thinks. I have no doubt the Hall rifle is worth
 less; but 1 have no idea that all the arms are in
 that condition, or that they could not be used
 upon any sudden emergency. It is plain to
 my mind that, if the arms be sold in this way,
 they will be sacrificed in most instances; and even if they should be sold for anything mate
 ral the proceeds will be invested in all the little inventions in fire arms which speculators , may have on hand. In this manner the ori- ginal appropriation of arms will 20 for nothing , It will become mere fund for experiment, and the encouragement of little inventions in arms. 1 think so because there Is no limitation as to callbre; no requirement. that the arms purchas- . ed shall be of the same character with those , used by the troops of the United States, under the regulations which are laid down by the de-
 partmcnt of war.
 f In order to obviate these objections, I move
 to amend the amendment by adding this pro- vso.
 , Provided, That no arms be so purchased or provided except such as may be of the same description and caliber in use in the army of the , United States
 Mir. Jones, of Tennessee. accept that with great deal of pleasure. I have no difficulty , about it. But 1 wish to put myself right in regard to remark made by my friend from Arkansas. 1 stated was not willing to take these arms from the jurisdiction of the States to which they belong. The Senator says am mistaken. This is what 1 understand to be ? the law of 1908, distributing these arms: They
 are deposited with the States, subject to the 3 conrtol of the governments of the States, the Federal Government having no jurisdiction ? over them, except when they are needed for { the defense of the country and for the arming
 of the militia, they may be required to be thus used. They are as essentially subject to the t control and direction of the States as any other property of theirs the Federal Govern 7 ment having no power over them except the : isolated power to require them to be used by the militia of the States when the militia are
 called out in defence of the country. The Co., 3 vernors of the States are using these guns eve- l Il l.. Al- of them now in the hands of individual mili- tia in the State of Tennessee which were de-
 posted with the State by the General Govern ) ment. If they belong to the General Govern. t ment, the State has no right to use them for Q this purpose The Federal Government has deposited them subject alone to the condition g which l have stated. They are to be kept by f the State to be used for the defense of the } country, and when the General Government
 orders out the militia, or requires the militia to e be ordered out by the State governments these I arms are then to be put in their hands. That 3 is the condition of the law.
 f Mir. Weller. It seems to me that'the Scna- tor from Tennessee does not answer the obec- l tion of my friend from Arkansas. If his doc- Urine be true that the property is in the States, the States require no consent of Congress to X sell or dispose of the arms. But think they are distributed among the States as trustees for t the Federal Government. The States hold l them for specific purpose. That purpose is pointed out in the law; and I apprehend there is no authority in State to sell, or otherwise 3 dispose of this property, or divert it to any 7 other purpose than that designated in the law t under which they are distributed. This morn Ing we made an appropriation of $3O,OOO for the purpose of publishing system of tactics, with a view of distribution among the various l States of the Union. The chief reason why I voted for that amendment was, because it was
 important that we should have uniformity in ) the manner in which our soldiers are drilled in the respective States, SO as to make them the more effective when they are brought into the public service against a common enemy ! Now, it is just as important to have uniformity 3 of arms in your army as it is to have uniformi- , ty in drilling the soldiers If the amendment originally proposed by the Senator from Ten : nessee be adopted, there will not be that uni formity among the respective States of the Union which, in my judgment is necessary in l order to produce efficiency in the common