Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

tribute their action, whether to selfishness or patriotism, it was still the people who on that occasion preserved the peace of the community.

Mr. DANA. If the gentleman will allow me, I will state that on that memorable occasion the entire military force of London and the vicinity was concentrated in London and furnished with arms so as to be ready at any moment to repair to the scene of action; but they were skilfully stationed ought of sight, so that the feelings of the people might not be aggravated by seeing that there was any apprehension that the military would be needed. The civil forces, however, knew that they were ready at any moment, and so did the Chartists.

Mr. BIRD. I am aware of all that; but had it not been that the citizen soldiery stood between the Chartists and the Throne, the institutions of England could not have stood one moment, if the Chartists had seriously attempted to overthrow them. There was physical force enough in the Chartist ranks and behind them to have demolished any portion of the military which could have been brought to bear upon them, had not the people of England stood between anarchy and order.

Let me ask attention to an illustration nearer home. The only case in which there has ever existed a real necessity for the interposition of a military force to preserve the peace in Massachusetts, (except in the days of 1775, when the people took arms to put down the military,) was the "Shay's Rebellion;" and then, gentlemen who glorify the militia must remember, the people armed themselves to suppress an insurrection headed by a militia officer, with militia men for the mass of his followers.

Now, Mr. Chairman, gentlemen talk about the necessity of this volunteer militia, in order to prevent mobs in Massachusetts. Let me ask, Sir, how many there are of them? I understand that the whole number is not more than four or five thousand; or at the farthest, we may say seven thousand. Now, can any gentleman seriously suppose that the peace of this whole Commonwealth is preserved by this insignificant body of men? Sir, it is the law-abiding, peace-loving, order-preserving citizens of Massachusetts, to whom we are indebted for the feeling of security which we enjoy. My friend for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett,) says that when we go to bed at night, we sleep soundly because we feel that we have the bayonets of the soldiers around us for protection. I can tell my friend that I sleep very quietly, and we have not got a soldier in the whole of Norfolk County, that I know of, unless there may be one or two companies in Roxbury to help take care of

[June 20th.

Boston. When I go to bed, I sleep very soundly and quietly, because I am myself, as I humbly hope, a law-abiding and peaceable citizen, with a tolerably clear conscience; and in addition to that, I feel that the whole community around me is composed of honest, conscientious, law-loving, and law-abiding citizens, and that we have five hundred thousand men of the same description all over the State. That is what preserves the peace of Massachusetts; it is not your four thousand five hundred or five thousand men, who parade your streets, making night hideous with their music, and the day too, as we have learned in our sittings here for two or three days past, amusing children, and children of a pretty large growth, some of them. It may be a very harmless amusement for those who cannot appreciate anything better; and I am not sure but that I should be very willing, although it is perfectly useless, to pay my share of the forty or fifty thousand dollars a year, more or less, which this children's play costs, for the sake of affording this amusement; but it is rather a poor way of expending money, for all that. Gentlemen lack words to extol the patriotism of the volunteer militia in maintaining their organization to preserve public order. Patriotism, is it? It is hardly safe to question it; but, Mr. Chairman, let me say, enforce effectually the "Maine Law," shut up the "Porters," and the "Nonantum," and half a dozen other "retreats in the vicinity of Boston, and the majority of the volunteer companies will be disbanded in a month. If this is any reflection upon their patriotism, make the best of it. I do n't want their votes.

The gentleman from Charlestown, (Mr. Frothingham,) told us of the joy which swelled his heart as he heard the tap of the drum and the tramp of the approaching soldiery on a recent occasion in that city. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am unwilling to cast any reflections upon the police arrangements of the city of Charlestown, of which the gentleman is chief executive officer; but I must say, that with a properly organized police force, and the aid of the citizens that could at any time have been secured, the very organization of a dangerous mob on that occasion would have been impossible. And, as a matter of fact, I understand that no military force was necessary at all on that occasion to resist the mob; for the soldiers marched over the bridge from Boston, and then marched back again-the whole thing was settled long before they got there.

Mr. FROTHINGHAM. I beg leave to add a few words to correct the gentleman's statement. There were two volunteer corps belonging to Charlestown; those two companies were on the

[blocks in formation]

spot, and they prevented the violence. Subsequently, a company came from Boston whose services were not required.

Mr. BIRD. These two companies prevented violence? I protest against any such nonsense. [Laughter.] I want the gentleman to show me what the militia did to prevent violence. Sir, I say it is a libel upon the character of Massachusetts men to say that these four or five thousand men are necessary to protect them; it is not true that the law-loving citizens of Massachusetts need any such protection. I do not know what other men think about it, but, for one, I would rather trust my liberties to any hundred men whom I could pick up when the occasion should require it, than to trust them in the hands of the men whose training, if it has any effect, leads them to rely rather upon the law of might than the law of right.

While the gentleman from Charlestown was speaking, I was thinking about the State Prison in that city, and about the argument as to the necessity of the military, in connection with that institution. You have got more villany, more desperation, more of the elements of mischief within those four walls than in all the rest of the State; and who keeps all those convicts in order?

Mr. OLIVER, of Lawrence. If the gentleman from Walpole will allow me to interrupt him, I would like to ask him who it was that preserved order and put down a riot in the State Prison, at the time when Major Wainwright and the marines from the navy yard marched in there?

Mr. BIRD. The gentleman himself is evidently more familiar with the history of the case than I am, and he can answer his own question if he pleases.

Mr. OLIVER. I presume some gentlemen here may be more conversant with the circumstances than I am; for we should all take an interest in such matters. I am sorry that I cannot give the date of the transaction, but I will mention some of the particulars of the case. Gentlemen here may perhaps recollect that on a certain occasion a riot took place among the criminals in the State Prison, and the usual armed police force was found to be entirely incompetent to perform the duty of keeping the prisoners in subjection. They had, by some means or other, obtained the keys, and opened the passages by which the cells communicated with each other, and there they completely defied the whole force of the prison. A messenger was sent to the navy yard for Major Wainwright, and he repaired to the State Prison with a detachment of marines, and marched those marines into the entry in which the mob of prisoners was congre

[June 20th.

gated; and he had the door locked upon him and his men.

He then took out his watch and held it in his hand, and said to the prisoners—“I will give you five minutes to go to your places." Those minutes were delivered off to them, one after another; one minute has expired-another minute has expired, and another, until at last the word was given to his men, in military parlance, Ready! Aim!" and the prisoners went out through the door they had entered. I do not know which went first, but they all went to their respective places.

66

Mr. WILSON, (in his scat). Probably they "stood not upon the order of their going." [Laughter.]

Mr. OLIVER. I merely mention these facts, but I do not know but that the ingenuity of the gentleman will find some way to turn them

upon me.

Mr. BIRD. As that happened so long ago, that my friend has forgotten when it was, and as no gentleman here seems to be able to furnish him with the date, I submit, that the fact that the discipline of the prison has been maintained ever since without the resort to military force, proves more for us than his story does for him. But what does his story prove? It proves that the managers of the prison allowed a bad system of police, which enabled the prisoners to get the power into their own hands; but it does not prove that any United States troops were necessary, except to remedy gross neglect; for in that case a detachment of United States troops should be stationed in the vicinity of every jail in the Commonwealth.

What I undertake to say is this; that within twenty or thirty years past-and my friend for Abington, says this happened nearly thirty years ago-the State Prison has contained nearly all the desperadoes in the Commonwealth, or at any rate, more than all the rest put together; and order has been maintained without a resort to military force. My friend from Quincy, near me, (Mr. Morton,) recommends the gentleman to tell that story to the marines. [Laughter.]

Now, Mr. Chairman, to speak of this matter seriously, this is what I claim-that you need a military force in this Commonwealth only as an armed police. I do not care whether it requires five thousand, or ten thousand, or fifty thousand men, when they are needed, they can be had, in whatever numbers. Arm them, equip them, drill them if necessary, and they will always be reliable when law and order are threatened. Let them be an armed police or citizen soldiery, and nothing else-no part of the army of the United States.

There seems to be a strange confusion of ideas

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

in the minds of some gentlemen here, or else it is in mine, upon the relations between the Federal and the State governments. This whole matter, with regard to the militia of Massachusetts, was put into the Constitution of the Commonwealth under the old confederation. There was no United States Constitution then-no federal government; and it was necessary that some provision should be made in relation to military matters. This Constitution was made during the war of the Revolution, when possibly, an exaggerated importance was given to the militia, and when a necessity was supposed to exist of inserting details in the Constitution. Under the confederation it was natural and competent for the State to act upon this subject. But, I undertake to say that the recent interpretation of the relations existing between the Federal government and the State governments have settled conclusively-I care not what the decisions of the United States Courts have been-but I say, that practically, the whole country has come to this conclusion, viz.: that each State government has its entire control of the military force of its own State; and that the Federal government has no power whatever to compel the militia of any State to go beyond its borders without their own voluntary consent. Congress may, as provided for in the Federal Constitution, "provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;" but each State has reserved to herself the right to judge, as a sovereign, whether the exigency justifies the "call," and then, whether she will order her militia to respond to the "call." Is this nullification? No-it is State Rights. The Federal Constitution provides that a fugitive from justice "shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, &c." And yet, it is notorious, that the executive of every State decides for itself, whether or not it will comply with the requisition. In this case, as in the case of the calling forth of the militia, it is a matter of comity entirely, and the federal government has no right to enforce its call for troops any more than a State government has the right to enforce its demand for a fugitive from justice.

This, I hold to be true democratic doctrine; and no democrat and no democratic party in the country dares stand upon any other doctrine than that acted upon by the Federalists of the war of 1812-to which reference was made by the gentleman for Wilbraham, (Mr. Hallett). I say it without fear of contradiction, Mr. Chairman, that the democrat does not live and never will liveunless he surrenders entirely all our doctrines of

[June 20th.

State Rights, and gives up the State bound hand and foot to the federal government-who will acknowledge the right of the president of the United States to issue a proclamation ordering out the troops of a State for any purpose whatever, whether for a foreign invasion, a war of conquest, or to suppress insurrection in another State.

But, say the Federalists of the present day,not such Federalists as Governor Strong, for he was a democrat on this point,-this doctrine makes it impossible for the federal government to call out troops in a case of actual necessity. My answer is, if they have not got the power in the Constitution that may be their misfortune, not our fault. I stand upon the bond. We have not delegated this power to the federal government; therefore we will not submit to its usurpation.

But I reply farther, that it will be always safe to rely upon the voluntary aid of the militia of the States whenever the federal government ought to have it. If there were ever any doubt upon that point, it was removed by our experience in the Mexican war. If volunteers could be gathered to engage in such a war as that, then I say that it is perfectly safe in every future contingency to rely upon the patriotism of the people. In the first place, whenever one State needs aid from another to suppress insurrections, reliance can be placed upon the comity of the several States; and, in the next place, if the general government needs the militia to repel invasion, we can always depend upon the patriotism of individuals who will volunteer, in every emergency requiring the exercise of that patriotism.

What I would insist upon is this, that the federal government has no power whatever to meddle with our State military system. So far as the power was delegated to congress to " organize, arm, and discipline the militia," and to "call forth the militia" for certain specific purposes, our hands are tied. But I would see to it that we yield to the federal government no powers not clearly granted by the Constitution. In the case cited by the gentleman from Natick, (Mr. Wilson,) when the administration of Mr. Van Buren interfered in this matter, it is alleged that this interference was one of the causes of the defeat of that administration. Sir, it deserved it, and any administration that should attempt to encroach upon he rights reserved to the States, and guarded by the States so jealously, would meet with a similar rebuke.

I wish gentlemen would try to look a little more clearly-I say it with all deference-at this doctrine which they broach here about the power

[blocks in formation]

of the Federal government to interfere in any way whatever with the militia system of a State. The Constitution gives power to congress to do certain specified things; let them do it in their own way. The Constitution gives power to call out the militia of a State; let them call them out if they will, and get them out if they can. I would like to see any man who will stand up and say that the president of the United States has any power to compel me to go and assist in putting down a slave insurrection in Virginia. I say I will not go; and he may make me go if he can. That is the true doctrine of reserved rights. Gentlemen may perhaps say that this is nullification; but it is not. It is simply asserting my rights as an individual-rights which I never yielded up to the federal government. It is saying to the federal government, "You are not competent to compel us to do what we did not give you any authority to require of us." Of course I trust I should be willing to volunteer in a good cause; but I protest against admitting what is practically denied all over the country, although theoretically it may be admitted. I protest against admitting the power of the federal government to call upon me, or upon any citizen of this State, to go into any other State, either to quell insurrection or to repel invasion, without our free and voluntary consent. Gentlemen are shocked at the contumacious conduct of the old federalists in the war of 1812; but we remind them that the only trouble was that in that case the federalists took the democratic doctrine and carried it out, and would not allow the federal government to interfere with their reserved rights. That is not the only instance in the history of the country that the federal party or the whig party, no matter what name you choose to call it by, has had to suffer for carrying out democratic doctrine a little too honestly.

Mr. BRADFORD, of Essex. The gentleman from North Brookfield has defended the chairman of the Committee who made this Report, from the imputation of being an ambitious military man. If the chairman is not, I profess that I am an ambitious military man; that is, that I desire to have the militia of the State established and supported in a condition of as much effectiveness as possible. I wish to see it always as effective as it is at this time, or as it is represented to be by its zealous defender, the gentleman from Lawrence, on my left, (Mr. Parsons,) at receptions;-not that kind of receptions, however, to which he alluded, where the entertainment is roast beef and champagne;-but those where the tapster draws claret, and lead and powder are the food.

I offered the amendment in no unfriendly

[June 20th.

spirit to the militia, or to the Committee who made the Report; but at the time when I submitted it, I supposed it was a matter which had been overlooked by the Committee; and if the article introduced in the Report is intended as a substitute for the old seventh article in our Constitution, it seemed to me that the proviso was in some way overlooked.

Several objections have been made by various gentlemen who have very zealously defended the militia where it was not attacked. One of the principal grounds upon which this amendment, that I have submitted, is opposed, is that it will lead to a clashing between the authorities of the United States and those of Massachusetts. Sir, if that were certain to be the case, I should not deem it a sufficient reason, provided the amendment is, as I deem it is, an important safeguard to the people of the Commonwealth; but this seventh article, as reported by the Committee, has put it out of the case that there would be any clashing between this State and the United States, as there formerly was when the power of the governor and the president were brought into conflict. This seventh article states that the governor shall be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the State, when that army and navy are not in the service of the United States. That exception takes away all the danger of any conflict or clashing between the governor of this State and the executive of the United States. When the militia is called out by the president of the United States, they are put under his authority and command, and the governor has nothing to do with them; and of course the amendment would not apply. It applies only to cases where the president of the United States does not call out the militia, but where the governor calls them out as commander of the forces. Many cases might be supposed, in which this would be done. If the State of Rhode Island should be in a state of insurrection, and the governor of that State should apply to the governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for aid; and if, on that application, our governor should propose to order out the militia of the State to go into Rhode Island, and suppress that insurrection, there is a case in which this amendment would apply. The object of the amendment is to afford a safeguard and protection to the people of this State against being drawn into a war in Rhode Island without their consent.

I was almost persuaded by the argument of the president to withdraw the amendment which I offered, for it would seem from his remarks that there was no real necessity for it, because it was already implied in the language of the resolution.

Monday,]

BRADFORD-HOPKINSON - KEYES.

But if it is not absolutely necessary, no man has yet stated upon this floor that its adoption will work any evil. Whether it is necessary, is a matter of some doubt. One of the gentlemen who spoke in opposition to this amendment, the gentleman from Natick, who holds a high military command in this State, and who, I suppose, has as good a prospect as any other gentleman in the State of being commander-in-chief of her military forces, has distinctly stated that if there was an invasion of Rhode Island, the military forces of this State must be marched there to repel it. There might be a difference of opinion upon this point between the different governors of this Commonwealth. Some of them would be for carrying the militia out of the State, if this provision which I have submitted as an amendment did not restrain them; while others would think they were already restrained. Some might suppose they had power to march the militia even into Virginia to put down an insurrection there, to use the illustration of one of the gentlemen who preceded me; and if such a gentleman should happen to be governor of the Commonwealth, this amendment would be absolutely necessary for the protection of the people of the State. It seems that a call was actually made upon the governor of this State by Rhode Island for aid in a certain emergency; but the executive had the extreme prudence not to order the militia to go to the aid of that State. Whether it was altogether prudence on the part of the executive, or whether it was this constitutional proviso, the very language of which I now propose to have added here-which it was that saved the citizens of this Commonwealth upon that occasion, is not quite certain. I am willing to believe, however, that the prudence of the executive would have sufficed without the proviso; but it may not always be so. There may be danger that we may have an executive of less prudence than the gentleman who at that time filled the chair. gentleman has yet stated that this proviso can work any harm, except in an anticipated conflict which it may bring us into with the United States. I think, Sir, that it is very evident that the exception already made in the seventh article in the language as placed there by the chairman of the Committee will provide for that case. That objection, therefore, is not valid; it is altogether imaginary, and is struck out by this exception to the seventh article. No other valid objection, as I understand it, has been made against adding that proviso to the seventh article, and I hope, Sir, that it will be added.

No

The question being then taken, the amendment was not agreed to.

[June 20th.

Mr. HOPKINSON, of Boston. I now move to amend the seventh article by adding the words, "to be exercised agreeably to the laws of the land." I wish to say that if the recommendation of the Committee is to have any force upon the Convention, the vote should be taken when the House is fuller than it is at present. I desire, also, to have every amendment discussed in Committee of the Whole when this can be done; and therefore I would move that the Committee now rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was not agreed to.

Mr. HOPKINSON. It appears to me that this is a question of too much importance not to be considered and acted upon by a full Committee. If a discussion should take place upon it now, it will have to be all gone over again in Convention, for no vote, even an unanimous vote in Committee of the Whole, could be considered a vote of the Convention. As the Committee refuse to rise, I shall, at the suggestions of some gentlemen near me, now withdraw the amendment, but shall offer it again, and endeavor to have it considered and acted upon in the Convention.

Mr. KEYES, for Abington. Although I do not know but that most of those who voted against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Essex, have gone away, I feel constrained to say a few words in connection with that part of the subject. Sir, the rejection of that proposition strikes me as one more evidence to the people of Massachusetts, that we want to exhibit still farther our servility to the government of the United States. We have listened to four speeches, and there was not in them all, one single argument in relation to the amendment. On the one hand there was nothing but a fulsome eulogy of our militia; and on the other hand, there was the most ridiculous and extreme caution manifested not to say anything reflecting upon the acts or government of the United States, but, throughout, the most base, abject and menial submission to that authority. In the first place we were told, that if we should adopt the proposed amendment, it might bring us into conflict with the United States. Well, Sir, who cares for that? If the government of the United States cannot take care of its business without our crawling on our faces all the time, what is the use of having a government of Massachusetts ? If Massachusetts cannot take care of its own rights, it is unworthy of the allegiance of the people of Massachusetts. What is the use of this continual harping about the authority of the United States? Why, Sir, the men of 1812 and 1814 thought something about protecting the rights

« ForrigeFortsett »