Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

"The details of the proposed enrolment will be given in a general order from head-quarters. GEORGE N. BRIGGS, Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Boston, 26th May, 1846."

I suppose if there had been any reason found on which to criticize severely this proclamation, it grew out of the fact that the party to which the governor belonged, in the congress of the United States had declared that that war was unjust and unconstitutionally made.

But I say the time may come when the provisions of this proviso may be needed. In regard to that war I am not going to express my opinion here. I long for a more comprehensive vernacular to record my indignation and abhorence of its character. [Laughter.] I say it may possibly happen, that there may be such an administration at Washington, and such a government in Massachusetts, as would render the restrictions of this proviso proper and necessary. If there is no other evil attached to it except that it contains a superfluity of words, I hope it will be retained.

We have very good governors in these days, but sometimes it has been supposed that they lacked back-bone. Governor Strong was a man who had back-bone. He took the responsibility, and the supreme court of those days sustained him.

Sir, I listened with pleasure to, and concurred in every word of the argument of the gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Hopkinson,)-which it is not my good fortune always to do. They were reasonable, sensible, and recommend themselves to our consideration. The arguments of the President of the Convention, (Mr. Banks,) and of the gentleman from Pittsfield, (Mr. Briggs,) make out that the proviso is only superfluous. Allowing that to be the case, yet as we are legislating for the future, and for all possible contingencies, it seems to me that it is the better course to adopt the restriction.

Mr. WILSON, of Natick. The gentleman from Walpole, (Mr. Bird,) told us to-day that we had nothing to do with the militia of the State. He referred us to a provision in the Constitution of the United States, which authorizes congress to arm and discipline the militia, and to call them out whenever any emergency arises requiring their services. Well, Sir, the congress of the United States has not hitherto seen fit to exercise that power. We have lived under the government for two generations, and no serious attempts have been made to arm and discipline, by the national government, the militia of the several States. In 1838 and 1839, however, such

[June 20th.

an attempt was made by the administration of Mr. Van Buren. A bill for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia of the several States in the Union, was attempted to be passed, but in the presidential canvass of 1840, a campaign which so many of us remember, we know the administration of Mr. Van Buren was denounced from one end of the Union to the other, on account of this attempt to create a standing army in the United States, by arming, and disciplining, and assuming authority over the militia of the several States. Nothing in that canvass served so effectively to blast the administration of Mr. Van Buren, in the eyes of those who were in favor of State Rights, as this one attempt to arm and discipline the militia of the several States. Sir, I do hope the congress of the United States will make no law upon this subject for all time to come. The duty of providing for the militia force, is a duty which properly belongs to the States themselves, and I hope congress will never interfere. The gentleman from Walpole, I am aware, is not a very strong believer in the utility of the militia under any circumstances, and he is especially opposed to military parades. In this, I cannot fully concur with him. He is in favor of, and advocates the amendment of my friend from Essex, (Mr. Bradford). Now I think the president of the Convention has shown, most satisfactorily, that the amendment is unnecessary and inexpedient. In that opinion the distinguished gentleman from Pittsfield, (Mr. Briggs,) concurs. I most heartily concur in all the views expressed by both these gentlemen upon the subject, and I hope the views they have expressed will meet the concurrence of the Committee and of the Convention.

But the gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Hopkinson,) desires to strike out that provision which will not allow the governor of the Commonwealth to be commander-in-chief of the militia of the State, when called into the service of the United States. Well, Sir, I look upon that provision rather as a restriction than otherwise. Why, Sir, when the militia of Massachusetts are called into the service of the United States, they are under the direction of the government of the United States, and I for one do not wish that the governor of the Commonwealth shall leave the duties of his office here, to place himself at the head of the troops in the service of the United States, and lead these troops out of the State. No, Sir; let the militia of the State, when they are called into the service of the United States, be under the direction of the United States authorities, and let the governor of the Commonwealth stay at home and attend to his executive

[blocks in formation]

duties. I believe that is the true policy, and I hope it is a policy which the Convention will adhere to now.

But the gentleman from Boston says, that this article originated with, or was reported by John Adams and by Judge Parsons. Now, Sir, it so happens that most of this article was copied from the Charter of William and Mary in 1692. But just notice its language. I think as a matter of good taste it should not be continued in the Constitution any longer. The idea of saying in our Constitution that the governor "shall have full power by himself, or by any other commander, or other officer or officers, from time to time, to train, instruct, exercise and govern the militia and navy, and for the special defence and safety of the Commonwealth, to assemble in martial array, and put in warlike posture, the inhabitants thereof, and to lead and conduct them, and with them to encounter, repel, resist, expel and pursue, by force of arms, as well by sea as by land, within or without the limits of this Commonwealth, and also to kill, slay and destroy, if necessary, and conquer by all fitting ways, enterprises and means whatsoever, all and every such person and persons as shall at any time hereafter in a hostile manner, attempt or enterprise, the destruction, invasion, detriment or annoyance of this Commonwealth." Why, Sir, there is certainly no need of employing such language in the Constitution of Massachusetts, and I hope the Convention will strike it out altogether.

But, if the gentleman wishes to retain one of the provisos at the end of the article, I am perfectly willing that it should be retained. I am perfectly willing that we shall provide that the provisions of this article shall "be exercised by the executive agreeably to the rules and regulations of the Constitution, and the laws of the land, and not otherwise." If the gentleman will offer that proviso I shall not object to it. I do not suppose any gentleman in this Convention wishes to put any power in the hands of the executive that is not authorized by the Constitution of the Commonwealth and by the laws of the land.

The gentleman for Erving, (Mr. Griswold,) told us in his speech the other day, that John Adams had said, that there were four institutions in the State of Massachusetts, any one of which would have led to the Revolution; the townmeetings, the free schools, the congregational societies, and the militia. Sir, every man in this body will acknowledge that John Adams was not only the man, above all others, who led the Revolution, but that he understood the power of these institutions of Massachusetts, and this is the language of that great man who comprehended

|

[June 20th.

the force of these institutions upon the independence and freedom of the country. I hope we shall adhere to the policy of discouraging standing armies and encouraging the militia, which he so strongly commended. I have no sympathy whatever with that sentiment which sneers at and derides the militia of this Commonwealth. Sir, while the last legislature was in session, the militia were called out to protect the city of Charlestown from mob violence, called out by the mayor of that city, who, is now an honored and worthy member of this Convention, and I happen to know that it is the opinion of men of intelligence, that it was the calling out of the militia of Charlestown and Boston that saved that city from such an outbreak as that fatal one of several years ago, to which, the president of the Convention alluded in his remarks-an outbreak which dishonored our Commonwealth. And it must be evident to every man that such a force is necessary for the protection and the preservation of the peace of the Commonwealth. We have in this State, a militia force amounting to about 7,000 men, armed and disciplined, and I undertake to say that most of these men can drill so as to win the applause of officers of the regular veteran troops of the United States.

The militia of Massachusetts, to-day, is a very different affair from what it was a few years ago. Since the present volunteer system has been adopted, young men of spirit and enterprise have joined it, and I regard it now as an honor to the State. I desire that it should be incorporated into the Constitution, and all necessary provisions made for its protection and advancement. And as the gentleman from Lawrence, (Mr. Parsons,) who holds a commission in the militia of the Commonwealth, has promised that the gentleman from Winchester, (Mr. Prince,) and others, who opposed the assembling of this constitutional Convention, if this Report is adopted, will support the action of the Convention and secure for its adoption five thousand votes, I hope the friends of constitutional reform will stand by the chairman of this Committee and sustain the Report without amendment.

Mr. WALKER, of North Brookfield. I will not detain the Committee with any extended remarks upon the subject of this Report; and I should not have risen at all in reference to it, if I had not been alluded to by the gentleman from Lawrence, the chairman of this Committee, (Mr. Oliver,) as one who could bear witness to the falsity of the charge made by the gentleman from Fall River, (Mr. Davis,) that he was an enthusiastic military man-for I understood the charge to be essentially that. The honorable chairman of

੧॥

[blocks in formation]

the Committee repelled the charge with very great effect, with very great propriety, and, I may add, with very great truth. I have no hesitation in saying, that nothing could be more unlike the character of that gentleman than such enthusiasm in military affairs as was charged by the gentleman from Fall River.

In proof of that assertion I must refer the Committee for a moment to an official document emenating from the gentleman from Lawrence, in 1847, when he was at the head of the militia of the Commonwealth, as adjutant-general. He then had the entire charge of the military affairs of the State, and in the performance of his official duty issued a circular to the officers of the various companies within the limits of the Commonwealth, instructing them to report to him the condition of their respective commands, and, if in a depressed condition, what was the cause of that depression? In pursuance of that special order, returns were made from a great many of the different companies of militia throughout the State, to some of which I ask the attention of the Committee for a moment :

Capt. John Kurtz, H, 1st Light Infantry, Boston. "I consider my company in a very depressed condition, and the cause I attribute to the present state of public opinion."

Captain Charles Caldwell, I, 4th Light Infantry, Medford." There are several reasons why this company is in a depressed condition. One is, that the State bounty is not adequate for the expenses of the company, and another is that a large portion of our influential men are opposed to the existence of any militia."

Captain Joseph B. Wright, B, Light Infantry, Pepperell."This company is very much depressed, there being no encouragement (under the present organization) to do military duty, and the public generally being opposed to it. Unless some change is made by the present legislature, we shall not have men enough to keep the company in existence."

Captain A. B. Ingalls, I, 6th Light Infantry, Lynn.-"The company is in a depressed condition, owing to the fact that no interest in the militia is taken by the public. I think it very doubtful if the company can exist much longer, unless some measures are taken to support or sustain the militia."

Captain Nathaniel F. Cutter, A, 9th Light Infantry, Ashburnham.-"My company is not in a flourishing condition. Public opinion (in this place) is strong against all military operations, and the law of the Commonwealth, which allows a man to perform duty or not, as best suits his convenience, I believe to be the cause."

Upon these returns, most of which, though not

[June 20th.

| all, are of the same general character, the adjutantgeneral, my worthy friend the chairman of the Committee, makes the following remarks:

"These causes, so well and so justly urged in the foregoing quotations are inherent in the existing system. But any system of military service, will, I think, pass away before the advance education, of true morals, and of an enlarged and of Christianity, the influence of a just and right high-toned refinement. These, aided by success and permanency in industrial pursuits, such as the minds and the men of Massachusetts can devise and pursue, must eventually render all arms and all forceful appliances unnecessary. That such may, at the earliest period, be the condition of our Commonwealth, of our common country and of the world, is my own most sincere and ardent desire. As a man bound to promote the best destiny, and to toil for the highest good of man, I should be unjust to our common humanity, false to the great principles of right, a traitor to all moral obligations, did I not add my hopes and join my labors in accelerating the great blessing. My views are not hemmed in by the purposes or proceeds of an office, which may safely be closed when men's hearts shall be so nicely attuned to the just harmonies of their better nature and of all truth and right, as to forget all selfishness and to live in all love; when bad men shall forsake their badness, and join the good; when all the good shall be consolidated into one undivided, indivisible, impregnable and victorious array against sin, against all wrong and all injustice. Then all necessity for arms, then all war and the direful furies that follow in its wasting train,— ("the land is like the garden of Eden before them, and behind them a desolate wilderness,")-then poverty, with all its heart-breaking, soul-killing crimes, then intemperance.-then slavery,— then every form of hateful sin, will be driven from earth, to the darker regions whence they came, and to which may they speedily return. But, alas, that the good are weak and too neglectful of high duty; alas, that legislation is so little imbued with the lofty magnanimity of Christianity; alas, that the bad are too mighty,-and that views of nearer advantage eclipse the more distant, though surer rewards of right! These things render us still victims, however unwilling, of a resort to force, when all else is unavailing. The legislature of Massachusetts must decide whether the time has arrived when it will be safe for the Commonwealth to make the experiment of removing the sword. As a lover of peace, I cannot object."

Now, Mr. Chairman, I think the extracts I have made fully vindicate the gentleman from Lawrence, the chairman of this Committee, from the charge made against him. I think I have proved, from the official documents of the Commonwealth, that he has no love for military affairs -certainly no military enthusiasm. I think he stands before the Convention fully acquitted of the charge. I felt it due to that gentleman that

Monday,]

WALKER - HALLETT.

[June 20th.

Europe, the subject of remodelling our own
military system becomes a matter of deeper inter-
est. I suppose it is a foregone conclusion with
this Convention that we must have a military
organization in this Commonwealth, but, Sir, I
hope it will be such as is best adapted to the
increasing pacific sentiment of mankind.

the Convention should hear extracts from the | being the fact in relation to military affairs in
noble document from which I have read, for it
will, I think, stand very much to his credit in the
good time coming-that blessed time which he
has predicted with so much confidence; when
military armaments will be no more needed; a
time to which he looks forward with so much
anxiety, and which, I am happy to tell him, I
anticipate with an equal degree of assurance.
And now, Sir, so far as repelling invasion
and putting down insurrection" are concerned, I
shall say nothing in regard to the necessity of an
organized militia, but so far as police services are
needed, to which gentlemen who have spoken
have often referred,—I will say, that an armed
police, organized for the purpose, would be doubt-
less quite as effective and much less objectionable.

[ocr errors]

I certainly would not increase the power of our militia organization, and I do not think the Report of the Committee is designed to have that effect. The chairman of that Committee is not a man who would recommend anything of that kind. for I suppose he regards the whole system as something about passing away.

Sir, we stand in a period of the world's history, such as was never witnessed before, in respect to military affairs. At this very time a great movement is being made in the most warlike nation in the world-a nation which has kept all other nations in commotion for the last sixty years. I mean Great Britain. A movement is now being made in that country, which I believe is destined ultimately entirely to abolish the whole military system of the world. That movement is headed by no less a man than Richard Cobden. He makes it a political issue, and upon it he stakes his political fortunes. He demands that England shall at once cease increasing her military and naval armaments, and propose to other nations to do the same. He says it is an absurdity; that England adds twenty-five ships of war and 50,000 troops to her military and naval forces because France has increased hers, and France adds to her armaments because England has increased hers, leaving both relatively just where they where before either had made such enlargement. Mr. Cobden maintains that such a system is, on the face of it, absurd, and ought no longer to be continued. On this issue he appeals to the people of England, a people of whom M. Guizot has justly said, that they are more distinguished for their "good common sense in application to political affairs than any other people in Europe." And, Sir, we may rest assured, that Mr. Cobden will not appeal in vain. The people will sustain him, and the present insane and iniquitous system will be repudiated by all Christendom. Such

I hasten to relieve the Committee. I rose mainly for the purpose of vindicating the chairman of the Committee on the Militia, a gentleman for whom I certainly entertain a profound respect.

Mr. HALLETT, for Wilbraham. I hope that this seventh article will be retained precisely as it is, and I hope that my friend from Natick, (Mr. Wilson,) will not insist on the amendment he has proposed. My reasons for it are briefly these: It is well known, that in the war of 1812, a conflict arose between the executive power of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the executive power of this nation. In the eighth volume of the Massachusetts Reports which I have in my hand, in the supplement will be found the opinion of the judges of the supreme court, which was given upon the question then raised by Caleb Strong, governor of this Commonwealth, upon the requisition that was made upon MajorGeneral Dearborn by the Secretary of War, calling upon Massachusetts to furnish her quota of militia for the defence of the country, under that provision of the Constitution of the United States which authorizes Congress to provide for calling out the militia for the defence of the Union and the execution of the laws. Governor Strong, in his letter dated the first of August, 1812, says :

66

Having laid before the council of this State a letter from the Secretary of War, of the 12th of June last, and letters dated June 22d and July 15th, which I received from Major-General Dearborn; and also a letter which I have received from the Secretary of War, July 21, 1812, requesting their advice as to what measures ought to be adopted in consequence of the requisition expressed in the said letters. The council therefore advised that, as upon important questions of law, and upon solemn occasions, the governor and council have authority, by the Constitution, to require the opinion of the justices of the supreme judicial court, it is advisable to request the opinion of the justices of that court on the following questions, to wit:

1. Whether the commanders-in-chief of the militia of the several States have a right to determine whether any of the exigencies contemplated by the Constitution of the United States, exist, so as to require them to place the militia, or any part of it, in the service of the United States, at the request of the President, to be commanded by him, pursuant to acts of Congress.

[merged small][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

"Whether, when either of the exigencies | exist authorizing the employing of the militia in the service of the United States, the militia thus employed can be lawfully commanded by any officers but of the militia, except by the President of the United States.'

"In conformity with the foregoing advice of the council, I request you, gentlemen, to state to me your opinions on the questions above-mentioned, as soon as conveniently may be. The Secretary will deliver you the letters above-mentioned. "I am, gentlemen, with great respect,

"Your most obedient servant,

"CALEB STRONG."

I will now read the following extracts from the reply of the justices to the governor's interrogative:

"By the Constitution of this State, the authority of commanding the militia of the Commonwealth is vested exclusively in the governor, who has all the powers incident to the office of commander-in-chief, and is to exercise them personally or by subordinate officers under his command, agreeably to the rules and regulations of the Constitution and the laws of the land.

"While the governor of the Commonwealth remained in the exercise of these powers, the Federal Constitution was ratified, by which was rested in the Congress a power to provide for calling forth the militia, to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions; and to provide for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States, respectively, the appointment of the officers. The Federal Constitution further provides that the President shall be commander-in chief of the army of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States.

"On the construction of the Federal and State Constitutions must depend the answers to the several questions proposed. As the militia of the several States may be employed in the service of the United States, for the three specific purposes of executing the laws of the Union, of suppressing insurrections, and repelling invasions, the opinion of the judges is requested, whether the commanders-in-chief of the militia of the several States have a right to determine whether any of the exigencies aforesaid exist, so as to require them to place the militia, or any part of it, in the service of the United States, at the request of the President, to be commanded by hm, pursuant to acts of Congress.

"It is the opinion of the undersigned that this right is vested in the commanders-in-chief of the militia of the several States."

That is one answer they gave to that proposition which brought the Commonwealth of Massachusetts directly in conflict with the United States. The answer they give to the second question proposed by the governor, reads as follows:

[June 20th.

tion of the justices is, whether either of the exigencies exist, authorizing the employing of the militia in the service of the United States, the militia thus employed can be lawfully commanded by any officer but of the militia, except by the President of the United States.

"The Federal Constitution declares that the President shall be the commander-in-chief of the army of the United States. He may undoubtedly exercise this command by officers of the army of the United States, by him commissioned, according to law. The President is also declared to be the commander-in-chief of the militia of the several States when called into actual service of the United States. The officers of the militia are to be appointed by the States; and the President may exercise his command of the militia by the officers of the militia duly appointed. But we know of no constititutional provision authorizing any officer of the army of the United States to command the militia, or authorizing any officer of the militia to command the army of the United States. The Congress may provide laws for the government of the militia, when in actual service, but to extend this power to the placing of them under the command of an officer not of the militia, except the President, would render nugatory the provision that the militia are to have officers appointed by the State.

(Signed)

THEOPH. PARSONS.
SAMUEL SEWALL.
ISAAC PARKER."

I remember no instance in political history that was more marked, than the course of the political men of that period, as they endeavored to place the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in an attitude of opposition to the government of the United States, in regard to this very question. I will only add that this opinion was subsequently revised in the case decided in the 12th of Wheaton's Reports, 30, where the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States was given by Mr. Justice Story, utterly and totally demolishing the arguments which had been here urged and the reasoning employed by the judges of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in regard to the powers of the United States and the powers of Massachusetts. All I have to say is, that these judges, and they were most learned judges in our land at that day, construed this very section and particularly that proviso which it is suggested should be incorporated into the Constitution, so as to lead to a result that was manifestly and directly in conflict with the laws and Constitution of the United States. If they did so honestly, and I do not doubt they did, it then shows that this provision was made for a period of time previous to the Constitution of 1798, and is not now applicable and ought not to remain in the Constitution, and this seventh provision precisely covers all the

"Another question proposed to the considera- exigencies of the case, because the Constitution of

« ForrigeFortsett »