The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-07-29
THE FORT SMELLING CASE
SPEECH OF HON. JOHN u. PETIT,
UT INDIANh,
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,,
JUNE 2, 1858.
OF INDIANA,

| Mr.. PETIT. hope the House will consent
| to let my colleague on the committee Mr.. Nor
RIs of Illinois, be heard. In consequence of
i'll health, he was unable TO reply, yesterday 10
the arguments on the other side, and it is a mat
ter of justice to him that he should be heard
now.
Mr. BARKSDALE. We have had enough dis
cusson upon this subject. | insist on my de-
mand for the previous question.
The previous question was seconded; there
being, on division-yeas 100, nays 27 and the
main question was ordered.
Mr.. PETIT. Mr.. Speaker, the House having
ordered the main question, and my colleague
the committee Mr.. NORRIS, of Illinois desiring
to be heard, now cheerfully yield him por-
ton of my time.
Mr.. DAVIS, of Mississippi. ! object to that.
Mr.. PETIT Mr.. Speaker, | propose, then,
coming at once to the matter which has been
under discussion in the House This transac-
ton, in my judgment, has been correctly charac-
terized in the resolutions reported by the major
ty of the committee. If, before the scrutiny and
criticism which this report has just undergone,
had allowed myself, at any time, to doubt the
propriety of its conclusions, the manner in which
it has stood this ordeal has left me without
doubt The act by which the important military
position of Fort Smelling and the military reserve
of several thousand acres belonging to it, was
lately silently and strangely disposed of from
public into private ownership, is utterly indefen-
sible II cannot be defended in law or morals
on principle, policy, or usage; nor even, if the
right or wrong of the transaction is of no conse-
quence, can it be defended on the consideration
pressed by the minority of the committee--that
the Government has lost no advantage by it. 1t
is wrong throughout. No man can defend it. |
mean just what have said but, since the gen.
tleman from Virginia Mr.. FAULKSER was pleased,
on yesterday, to sound, for the first time in this
connection, the clarion note of party, and call a
muster Of his political friends to join him'in OPP
position to the action proposed by the committee,
am not at liberty to say, in recollection of what
has sometimes come under my observation here,
when it is submitted to the arbitrament of
yote-Ihat final arbitrament to which all of us
here must submit-that 1t will not be defended
by force of party numbers. Let there be no mis-
take about it. The apparent Indignation that
moved the gentleman from Virginia to impute
party reasons for the action of the committee in
connection with this inquiry, was not because
so grave an impeachment was deserved, for, at
this very threshold, repel it; but was dramatic
only, and meant, because it implied that the Ad-
ministration was attacked by its political enc
mics that it should be defended by its political
friends. 1t is a stratagem, only, to avoid iudg-
ment of the case, and substitute in place of it
count of political friends.
1t is hardly necessary to say that this commit
tee acted under the immediate authority of the
House, was charged with specified duties, and
that its members were obliged by the same Off
cial responsibilities. No one was more import
ant than any other member of the committee;
and submit that it has hardly been decorous
in the gentleman from Virginia to erect a pri-
vate tribunal of his own, and arrogantly summon
the majority Of the committee to his Judgment
seat.
And now, Mr.. Speaker, in order that this mat
ter may be correctly understood, and the matter
Of difference made plain, ask for the reading of
See fourth page.