East Saginaw courier. (East Saginaw, Mich.) 1859-18??, 1865-12-13

ances, has been purely aggressive, and
not in resistance TO any attempt to
coerce State or States to remain in
the Union" He also stated the we'll
known fact that our small army was
on tho remote frontiers, and was
scarcely sufficient to guard the inhab-
itants against Indian incursions, and
consequently our forts were without
sufficient garrisons.
Under these circumstances he ap-
peals to Congress in the following
language: "But the, dangerous and
hostile attitude of the States to ward
each other has already far transcended
and cast in the shade the ordinary
executive duties already provided for
by law, and has assumed such vast
and alarming proportions as to place
tho subject entirely above and beyond
executive control. The fact cannot be
d;ee,.;seJ that We ure In tie midst OF
great revolution. In all its various
bearings, therefore, / commend the
question to Congress, as the only
human tribunal, under Providence,
possessing the power to meet the
existing emergency. TO them exclusively
belongs the po,rer 10 declare car or TO au-
thorise the employment Of military force IN
all cases contemplated by the Constitution;
and they alone possess the power to
remove grievances which might lead
to war, and to secure peace and union
to this distracted country. On them,
and on them alone, rests the response
bility."
Congress might, had they thought
proper, have regarded the forcible
seizure of these forts and other prop
erty, including that of the branch mint
at New Orleans, with all the treasure
it contained, as the commencement of
an aggressive war. Beyond question
the Cotton States had now committed
acts of open hostility against the fed
eral government. They had always
contended that secession was peace
full constitutional remedy, and that
Congress had no power to make war
against a sovereign State for the pur-
pose Of coercing her to remain in the
Union. They could no longer shelter
themselves under this plea. They had
by their violent action entirely changed
the position they had assumed; and
instead of peacefully awaiting the
decision of Congress on the question
/ of coercion, they had themselves be-
come the coercionists and assailants
This question had, therefore, passed
away. No person has erer doubted the
right or The duty Of Congress 20 pass h'es
enabling tie President TO detend the Union
against armed rebellion. Congress, ho,e-
err, still slrunk from the responsibility Of
passing any such h,rs. This might have
been commendable had it proceeded
from a sincere desire not to interpose
obstacles to compromise intended to
prevent the efIusion of fraternal blood
and rostoro tho Union. Still, in any
event, the time had arrived when it
was their duty TO make at the least
contingent provisions for the prosecu-
ton of the war, should this be render
cd inevitable. This he'd become the
more necessary as Congress would soon
expire, and the new Congress could
not be convened for considerable
period after the old one had ceased to
exist, because large portion of the
representatives had not then been
elected. These reasons, however, pro-
duced no effect.
The Presidents special message
(Con. Globe, p. 3l6) was referred, two
days after its date january 10) by the
House of Representatives to n special
committee, of which Mr.. Howard, of
Michigan, was chairman. Nothing
was heard from this committee for the
space of twenty days. They then, on
I January 30, through Mr.. John II.
Reynolds, of New York, one of its
members, reported bill (Con. Globe,
p. 645, bills of H. r., No. 69s) en-
abling the President to call forth the
militia or TO accept the services of vol
unteers for the purpose of protecting
the forts, magazines, arsenals, and
other property Of the United States,
and to ''recover possession" of such of
these as "has been or may hereafter
be unlawfully seized or taken possess
sion Of by any combination of persons
whatever" Had this bill become a
law, it would havo been the d;,;;t,y OF
the President at orce 10 raise q voiun-
teer or militia force to recapture the
forts which had been already seized.
But Congress was not then prepared
to assume such responsibility. Mr..
Reynolds accordingly ,cahdrew his bill
from the consideration Of the House on Tho
rery day IL uas reported. On his own
motion it was recommitted, and thus
killed as soon as it saw the light. II
was never heard of more.
Then, after another pause of nine
teen days, and only fortnight before
the close of the session, the Committee
on Military Affairs, through Mr.. Stan
ton, Of Ohio, their chairman, on Feb
ruary Is, reported another bill (Con.
Globe, p. 1,601, bill l,003, ii. r. on
the subject, but of more limited
character than that which had been
withdrawn. 1t is remarkable that il
contains no provision touching the re-
covery Of the forts and other property
which had been already seized by the
delinquent States. 1t did no more
than provide that the powers already
possessed by the President, under the
Act of 1705, to employ the militia in
suppressing instructions against a
State Government, should be extend
ed to the case Of instructions against
the authority Of the United States,"
with the additional authority to "ac-
cept the services of such volunteers as
may offer their services for the purpose
mentioned Thus all hostile action
for tho recovery of the forts already
, seized was excluded from the bill. Ii
is difficult TO conceive what reasonable
objection could be made to this bill,