The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1863-03-20
Speech OF a Conservative, Showing
the Absolute Necessity Of the Con.
scriptiOn Act.

scription Act.
Mr.. THOMAS, of Massachusetts, is a gen
tleman who was distinguished in the last
Congress as a conservative. He has diff
fered widely with the New England rad
icals, and has been sharply assailed by
them. But the purity of his patriotism is
as unquestionable as his ability is great.
He is one of the few members of the last
Congress who have given strong symptoms
of craftsmanship. His speech on the Con-
scription Bill will interest many, because
his position is peculiar, and it will command
general attention, for the reason that he
touches the marrow of the question with
good words. We do not agree with him
in all particulars, but he is q man well
worth hearing even when he is not pre-
cisely right, and he is not in the habit of
being far wrong.
Globe Report of Proceedings in the House of Repre-
sentatives, Feb 25.
CONsCRIPTION BILL.
Mr.. THOMAS, of Massachusetts. thank
my friend from Indiana (Mr. Holman),
Mr.. Speaker, for his great courtesy in
yielding to me the floor. l rejoice that l
have no party interest to represent, no
party topics to dircuss. have heard with
sorrow, not to say disgust, the voices of
party discord and bitter party strife from
both sides of the House. If the spirit of
party can not be subdued or chastened in
the presence OF such imminent peril, God
save the country, for he only can.
In the few remarks shall submit to the
House, propose to look directly to the
merits of the measure before US. Mr.
Speaker, this is a terrible bill; terrible in
tie powers it cOnfers on the Executive
terrible in the duty and burden it imposes
upon the citizen. / meet the suggestion
by one as obvious and cogent, and that is
that the exigency is a terrible one, and
calls for all the powers with which the
Government is vested.
do not rest the power of Congress to
pass this bill upon the provisions of the
Constitution in relation to the militia. |
put it upon the simple and clear provision
which gives to Congress the "power to
raise and support armies" and in the alb
sence of any provision of the Constitution
which limits or restricts that power. In
the nature of things, there can be no such
limitation. The powers of Congress, with
in the scope of the Constitution, are su-
preme, and strike directly to the subject
and hold him in its firm, its iron grasp. l
repeat what, at an early day, asserted
upon this floor, that there is not human
being within the territory OF the United
States, black or white, bond or free, whom
this Government is not capable of taking
in its right hand and using for its military
service whenever the defense of the cOun-
try requires, and of this Congress alone
must judge. The question of use is a ques-
ton of policy only.
Having the power to raise and support
armies and the exigency existing in which
the use of that power is necessary, the
question arises whether the powers given
to Congress with respect to the militia
qualify and restrain the power to raise and
support armies Very clearly not, Mr.
Speaker. They are distinct, independent
powers. The militia is a branch of service
well understood in the Mother Country and
our own to be called forth "to execute
the laws, suppress instructions, and repel
invasions." 1t was not designed for per-
manent service, but to meet special ext
gencies, and for brief periods of time.
This power to raise and support armies
is given to US to meet an hour and an
exigency like this.
Now, the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Wickliffe says that the army is made
up and has been made up by volunteer
enlistments, and that you never have
conscripted" men into the army. Doubt
less such has heretofore been the practice.
But the exigency never before arose when
it was necessary to conscript men into an
army. The exigency does not confer new
powers, but evokes them into service. AT
this moment, the question whether we
shall use this power is not one of policy,
not what is best. 1t is in effect ques-
ton to this nation of life or death. We
literally have no choice. Gentlemen upon
my right (the Republican side of the
House, know that it is my conviction that
all the Wanted panaceas for all our troub-
les have failed, utterly failed. Expected
them to fail. attempted in vain to sat-
isfy the House that it was leaning upon
reeds shaken by the wind. My earnest,
repeated suggestions were, of course, un-
needed But the results are too palpable
to be overlooked or mistaken. And rea-
son is slowly reascending the steps of its
throne. Pray God it may not be too
late.
The policy inaugurated on the 1st of
December, 1861, has been fruitless of good.
1t has changed the ostensible if not the real
issue of the war. Thatpolicy and the want
of persistent vigor in our military counsels
render any further reliance upon voluntary
enlistments futile. The nostrums have all
failed. Confiscation, emancipation by Con-
gress, emancipation by the proclamation of
the President, compensated emancipation,
arbitrary arrests, paper-made legal-tender,
negro armies, will not DO the mighty work.
Nothing will save US now but victories in
the field and on the sea and then the
prOffer OF the olive branch, with the most
liberal terms of reconciliation and reunion.
We can get armies in no other way but by
measures substantially those in the bill be-
fore us, unless the Administration will re-
trace its steps, and return to the way of
tho Constitution for re the strait and mar.