The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1861-04-19

4lauuetg REoecriOeQ ny iSWs0iaV nat y NupSs
" there be an insusreetion, in any State
dgdinst the ldscs and authorities thereof, the
Precedent can use the military to put II doscn
Eonly ss5sn called upon by tie State Lsgislq-
tsre, II 4 b IN session, OF, # It eannotbe con-
vened, By, the Gouernoy. He cannot inter-
| fere except when requested. II, on the con.
trary, the linsurrectiona be against the laws
of the United States instead of q State,
then the President can use the military as q
posse conitatvs In aid of the marshal in such
| cases as are SO extreme that judicial author
| ity and the powers Of the marshal cannot
put down the obstruction. The military
cannot be used in any case s0hatever except IN
aid Of evil process to assist the marshal to
execute a0rH. ! shall not quote the laws
upon this subject; but if the gentleman will
refer to the acts Of 1875 and 1907, they will
| find under the act of 1895 the militia only
could, be called out to aid in the enforce
ment of the laws when resisted to such an
extent that the marshal could not overcome
the obstruction. By the act of 1907, the
President is authorized to use the Army
and Navy to aid in enforcing the laws in
all cases where it. was before lawful to use
the militia. Hence the military power, no
matter whether Navy, regulars, volunteers
t0r militia, can be used only in aid of the
civil authorities. 7sa3al.ai -si---T45fsE ri
/ Now, sir, how are you going to create a
case in one of these seeded States where
the President would be authorized to call
nout the militaryf You must first procure
q writ from the Judge describing the crime;
you must place that in the hands Of the
marshal, and he must meet such objections
as render it impossible for him to execute it;
and then, and not till then, can you call
upon the military. Where is your Judge
| in the seeded States. Where is your
marshal You have no civil authorities
there, and the President, in his inaugural,
tells you he does not intend to appoint any.
q s1i97o HOLDING THE FORTS. y" r.,
We certainly cannot justify the holding
OF forts in the confederate states, much less
the recapturing Of those that have been
taken, unless we intend to reduce those
| states themselves into subsection. take it
for granted that no man will deny the pro>
position that whosoever permanently holds
Charleston and South Carolina is entitled
to the possession Of Fort Sumpter. Who
soeyer permanently holds Pensacola and
Florida is entitled to the possession of Fort
Pickens. Whosoever holds the states in
whose limits those forts are placed is en-
titled to the forts themselves, unless there
is something peculiar In the location of
some particular fort that makes it impor.
tant for US to hold it for the general defense
of the whole country, its commerce and in
terests, instead Of being useful only for the
defense of atparticular city or locality
It is true that Forts Taylor and Jeffer-
son, ct Key West and Tortugas, are SO sit.
uated as to. be essentially national, and
therefore important to us without reference
tooour relations with the seeded states,
Not 3 60 with Moultrie, johnson, Castle
Pinckney, and Sumpter, in Charleston har-
Dor not so with Pulaski, on the Savan-
nah river; not 30 with Morgan and other
ferts in Alabama !; not SO with those other
forts that: were intended to guard the en-.
trance OF particular harbor for local de.
tense. 80, ....t.....-ts .......lY
| Irepeat, that desire to know from the
Administration whether they mean peace
or war; whether they mean to ask for mill.
tary force adequate not only to hold the
forts they have got, but to recapture those
that have been lost, and to reduce to sub.
lection and obedience all the people of all
the states who have claimed, or shall claim,
the right to secede; for it is folly to talk
| about the forts, unless we are going to do
the other thing. 1t is morally wrong to
collect revenue from people you do not
protect. Ii you compel people to yield
obedience to your laws, you must give them
the protection of the laws. Hence the simple
question u.s., whether, by military power, by
the army, the navy, and the militia, we are
going to subjugate those seeded states and
hold them by military force in obedience to
our laws, until they 80 far change their in
| clinatiOns as to obey them voluntarily? If
this be the policy, | desire to know, and
the country will demand to know, how large
an army it will take. Rumor says that es-
Inmates are already made on that subject.
l should like to know whether those rumors
are correct. should like to have the es
innate before the country. l should like to
know whether or not, in the estimation Of
the highest military authority in America,
it would require thirty-fve thousand men
to protect the capital, and two hundred and
| fifty thousand more for field operations, in
ord r to reduce those states to obedience to
our laws and our authorityf 'aa )
Gentlemen may laugh and talk in their
seats about letter.writers. l saw them
laugh the other day, when told them that
while Fort Sumpter could have been re-
lieved and reinforced few weeks ago with
a single ship of war, now it could not be
done by your navy, unless you had ten
thousand land troops. When several of you
rushed off to the commanding General Of
the army, to know whether the statement
was correct or not, be is understood to have
said it was right in all things except that
my estimate was not big enough; it would
take nearer twenty thousand than ten thou
| sand troops, beside the naval force. l saw
the laugh and smile 60 over their counte-
nances when announced that on given
day Major Anderson had rations of bread
and salt for thirty.one days, meat for forty.
three days, and fuel for fifteen days, and 10
more. Unfortunately you have all learned