we had an army of 3,323, so we ought now to have only 6,646. But instead of this, it is said we must have 12,656, which, to me at least, is a non sequitur in argument.

Second. It was reported to us in 1818, that we then had seventy-three posts, but in 1802 there were only twenty-seven. On the supposition that it was necessary to garrison each post, ost, it would follow, not that you could employ the present establishment of 12,656, but only about 8,000, a little more than the aggregate proposed to be retained in the bill. But I deny that the posts necessary to be garrisoned amount to seventy-three. The Secretary himself told us, in answer to certain inquiries respecting the Yellow Stone expedition, that Indian hostilities had essentially terminated in the southwest, and therefore the troops had been ordered on service up the Missouri. If the troops could be spared, I should think the posts might also be spared. A gentleman who resides in the northwest told me the whole of that line of posts might be demolished. He said the people there did not want them. Admitting, however, that it is necessary to keep some posts both in the northwest and southwest, it still follows that you cannot show a greater number than about fifty, and consequently that you cannot, on the data assumed by the Secretary, find any use for an army larger than that proposed in the bill.

Third. The Secretary says, the line of frontier is greater than it was in 1802, in the proportion of seventy-three to twenty-seven. He has given both the line of frontier and the number of posts for the year 1818; but for 1802, only the number of posts. To enable us to determine fairly, he should have given the frontier at both periods. But, from the materials furnished, scanty as they are, we shall be led to conclude that the frontier has not increased in the proportion stated. Chesapeake Bay, for example, had the same indentations and sinuosities of coast. There were also the same distances from point to point, and the same meanders of rivers at both periods. It is said we have acquired Louisiana since that time. But every one knows the geographical and military frontiers are not always commensurate with each other, or extended precisely in the same degree. The Secretary calculated the acquisition of Florida would not extend our frontier more than about one hundred and twenty miles from point to point, while all agree that our geographical limits would be considerably increased. Indeed, the possession of Louisiana may be said, in several respects, to contract the military frontier. When Spain held it, the Indians were under her control, and were liable to be excited against us at any moment; but now there is no danger from that source. At any rate, then, the necessity for military defence has not increased in the manner stated by the Secretary, and repeated by the member from South Carolina.

The increase of public property, Mr. W. admitted, involved the necessity, correspondently increased, for a greater number of men to take care of that property. How or in what proportion public property has increased we have not been told. But, taking for the basis of calculation the

JANUARY, 1821.

number of guns and the number of men, reported to us as being at New York in 1818, (and certainly there is not a more important post,) we find that, on the whole seacoast, there could not be employed more than about 1,100. But there were stationed at that time, on the whole coast, 2,408 men, which is more than double the requisite number. The navy is intended to defend our shores. As it increases, I should suppose the army might be diminished. It is now three times as large as it was in 1802, and therefore three times as competent for our defence. But yet gentlemen demand for the seacoast an army much larger than when we had little or no naval strength. They seem to think the army ought to be increased in a direct ratio with the increase of the navy. On the contrary, I think it may be lessened as the navy is increased.

In 1802, when there was no danger of Indian war in that quarter, there were between 500 and 600 men only on the whole northwestern frontier; but in 1818, after the danger had quite subsided, we had between 1,500 and 1,600. It is the first time I have known the rule of inverse proportion applied to the defence of the country; that is, when the danger was greater, a less force was deemed sufficient; but, since the danger has be come less, it is now thought expedient to have a greater force. In short, sir, if we view the whole subject with reference to the danger which may threaten us, (and this is certainly the correct crite rion,) we can find no use at this time for an army as large as it was in 1802. The great, perhaps the only, object of an army, in time of peace, is to preserve the public works, to keep the guns from rust, and the fortifications from decay. I hold in my hand, sir, a list of the fortifications, and the number of men necessary to be stationed in each. From it it appears that about 4,500 are amply sufficient for the whole frontier, both maritime and inland. I have seen another statement, showing that about 3,150 would answer. If these statements are incorrect, I would thank gentlemen to point out the inaccuracy. But, taking either, we find there is not the least reason for keeping the present establishment of 12,656.

Why, then, shall it not be reduced to 6,000 men, as proposed in the bill? The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. SMYTH) had assigned one reason in opposition to the bill, which Mr. W. said, was particularly surprising. He said, militia endangered the liberties of their country, and, to prove it, mentioned that they lost the battle at Camden, in the Revolution! But can we not prove, by exactly the same kind of argument, that regular troops, when defeated, have endangered the liberties of their country, precisely in the same manner? Examine the history of the wars whien have desolated Europe for the last twenty-five years, and you will find abundant evidence of this fact. Who endangered France at the battle of Waterloo? The regular troops of France, who were defeated on that occasion. Was not the Austrian army defeated by Bonaparte at Wagram? Yes, and if my memory serves me, the Archduke Charles ordered his troops to be deci

mated for their cowardice in that engagement. These were regular soldiers, in whom the mem⚫ber from Virginia so much delights. If he had exerted his talents and industry to find evidence against regular armies, as he did against the militia, he would have been able to produce a much darker catalogue against the former than the latter. Militia, like other troops, are subject to the fortunes of war. They may be defeated; they may not in every instance act with becoming bravery; but the same objections apply to every other description of force. If militia are defeated, ☐ and thereby endanger their country, it is a misfortune from which I have shown you regular troops are not exempt. But regular troops, after they have vanquished the public enemy, turn round and subdue their own country, which is an act of great criminality. In a comparison between them, the one may be called unfortunate, while the other is highly criminal. The gentleman from South Carolina says, no danger is to be be apprehended from our Army. But I ask him whether he has heard of no instances in which the civil authority has been violated by our Army, harmless as he supposes it to be? If he has not, I shall not put myself to the trouble of pointing them out to him. I will merely remark, however, that an army is dangerous, on account of its moral as well as physical force; that a Government may be destroyed by the gradual prostration of its principles, as well as by a sudden overthrow; that every nation is disposed to admit the danger of all other armies, except its own, which is commonly supposed too good even to think of any mischief; that from this delusion a nation does not often awake till it is too late to profit by the recovery of their senses.

It has been said that this measure for reducing the Army is an attack upon the fame of the Ad- ministration. No doubt, said Mr. W., the mem- ber from South Carolina has more precise information on this subject than I have. Although one or more members of the Executive department may view it in the light mentioned by the gentleman, yet I shall not believe that it is so regarded by all of them, or by the President himself. But, if it was, shall we, for that reason, be diverted from a measure we believe to be right? Or shall we, before we are at liberty to mature our judgments upon given proposition, be required to run off to the Executive, to ascertain what is thought of it in that quarter? Sir, I hope not. The Executive knows that this House, in connexion with the Senate, make a constituent part of the Government, and certainly will not attempt to circumscribe the right we have to think and act for ourselves. Let me be convinced that a measure is right, and I shall act upon my own

1

a

H. oF R.

ened with taxes, and call aloud for help. Now, I ask, if we, their immediate representatives, shall not afford them relief, for fear it may conflict with some views of the Executive or his Cabinet? The system of economy, of which the bill before us is a part, is the best means of relief which can be adopted, and I for one will support it. Gentlemen have offered no arguments against it, which would not have applied, with equal propriety, against the reduction of the Revolutionary army, or the army at the close of the late war. The Army was made for the country, not the country for the Army. No matter how distinguished the individuals who compose it; yet, if the country does not require their service, they ought to return to private life. Thus acted the army of the Revolution. Washington, when it was no longer necessary he should use it, voluntarily surrendered his sword into the hands of Congress, from whom he received it. For this last, but greatest act, historians have ascribed to him more enviable fame, more true glory, more godlike virtue, than for every other act of his illustrious life. Is the Army now any better than it was then? Heaven forbid we should think so! Let us then follow the example of past, but wholesome times. Let us adopt this bill, and afford the people that relief from debt, from the prospect of taxation, which they have so just a right to expect.

TUESDAY, January 9.

Mr. GORHAM presented a memorial of the merchants and others of Boston, in the State of Massachusetts, against any increase of the tariff of duties on imports by way of protection to the manufacturing interests of the country; which memorial was referred to the Committee on Manufactures.

a

Mr. SERGEANT, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported bill providing compensation for marshals, clerks, and attorneys in the courts of the United States, and to repeal parts of former acts; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole.

Mr CAMPBELL, from the Committee on Private Land Claims, reported a bill for the relief of Peggy Mellen; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole.

Mr. STORRS, from the Committee on Roads and Canals, who were directed, by a resolution on the 23d of November last, to inquire into the expediency of opening a military and post road from some place on the Penobscot river, in the State of Maine, to the river St. Croix, made a report thereon, adverse to the opening said road; which was read, and ordered to lie on the table.

H. oF R.

tary Academy from the establishment thereof, in the erection of buildings and repairs; also the aggregate amount of expenses, up to the present time, for the pay and emoluments of teachers, officers, and cadets, and the number of cadets educated at said academy, &c., rendered in obedience to a resolution of the 5th ultimo; which letter and accompanying documents were ordered to lie on the table.

The SPEAKER also laid before the House another

letter from the Secretary of War, accompanied with a statement, showing the expenditures of the moneys appropriated for the contingent expenses of the Military Establishment for the year 1820.

Ordered, That the report of the select committee, "appointed to inquire if any, and if any, what, further provision may be necessary to give effect to the provisions of the treaty made at Brownstown, in the Territory of Michigan," made on the 12th of May last, be referred to the Committee on Roads and Canals.

Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, from the Committee of Ways and Means, reported a bill for the relief of William Smith; which was read twice, and committed to a Committee of the Whole.

ARREARS OF PAY, &c. -GENERAL DE KALB. Mr. RHEA, from the Committee on Pensions and Revolutionary Claims, to whom was referred, on the 4th of December, 1820, the petition of Elie, Baron of Kalb, knight of the royal order of military merit, and Maria Anna Carolina, of Kalb, widow Geymuller, made the following report, which was read and laid on the table:

That on the 10th of December, 1819, the petition of the said petitioners was referred to the Committee on Pensions and Revolutionary Claims; that on the 7th of February following that committee made report thereon.

This petition being again referred to the Committee on Pensions and Revolutionary Claims, the committee have had recourse to the Treasury Department for information relating to the accounts of the Baron de Kalb, and, by a report from that Department, it appears that "the only information on the subject of his accounts during the Revolutionary war is to be found in one of the legers of the late office of commissioner

of army accounts, preserved from the fire which destroy ed the public buildings; a copy of his accounts is extracted therefrom and enclosed. There does not appear, as far as the evidence in this office affords information, that any final settlement was made of the accounts of the Baron de Kalb; and at this period, when the records have so generally been destroyed, it would be impracticable to make one with accuracy." By the account alluded to, it appears that there is a balance standing to the debit of the Baron de Kalb amounting to $234,100 70-90.

"

The committee further report that the petitioners appear to claim the payment of any arrears of pay which may be due to their late father. On this subject the committee observe that the large balance appearing on the books of the Treasury, and standing debited in the account of the late Baron de Kalb, goes to preclude the expectation of any arrears of pay being due to the Baron de Kalb.

The petitioners appear to claim five years' pay as being due to their late father, the Baron de Kalb. On this subject the committee observe that, on the 15th of

JANUARY, 1821.

May, 1778, Congress unanimously resolved "that all military officers commissioned by Congress, who now are, or hereafter may be, in the service of the United States, and shall continue therein during the war, and not hold any office of profit under these States, or any of them, shall, after the conclusion of the war, be entitled to receive, annually, for the term of seven years, if they live so long, one-half of the present pay of such officers; provided that no general officer of the caval

ry, artillery, or infantry, shall be entitled to receive

more than one-half part of the pay of a colonel of such corps, respectively: and provided that this resolution shall not extend to any officer in the service of the United States, unless he shall have taken the oath of allegiance to, and shall actually reside within, some one of the United States." The resolution alluded to appears to be expressly intended for those officers only who, being in the service of the United States, did actually reside within some one of the United States, and did continue in the service of the United States during the war; and to the exclusion of all other officers who, although being in the service of the United States, did not actually reside within some one of the United States, or who did not continue in the service of the United States during the war. The Baron de Kalb, in the resolution of Congress of the 14th of October, 1780, is stated to be a brigadier in the armies of France. The family of the Baron de Kalb is believed to have resided, and continued to reside, in France; hence it is inferred that France was the place of his residence, and therefore that he is included within the proviso of that resolution. The resolution of Congress of the 15th of May, 1778, contains not any provision for the widows or orphans of officers who had died, or thereafter might die, in the service of the United States. On the 16th of August, 1780, the Baron de Kalb, major general in the service of the United States, in the action near Camden, in South Carolina, leading on troops of the Maryland and Delaware lines against superior numbers, and gloriously contending on behalf of the rights of mankind, was mortally wounded, and died on the 19th of that month, On the 24th of Au

gust, 1780, Congress resolved "that the resolution of the 15th of May, 1778, granting half-pay for seven years to the officers who should continue in service to

the end of the war, be extended to the widows of those officers who have died, or shall hereafter die, in the service, to commence from the time of such officers'

death, and continue for the term of seven years; or,

if there be no widow, or in case of her death or inter

marriage, the said half pay be given to the orphan children of the officer dying as aforesaid, if he shall have left any; and that it be recommended to the Legisla

tures of the respective States to which such officers belong to make provision for paying the same on account of the United States."

That resolution of the 24th of August, 1780, is explanatory of the resolution of 15th of May, 1778, and manifesting that that resolution was limited and confined to officers who did actually reside in some one of the United States, and not otherwise, and recom. mending to the several States, respectively, to make provision accordingly for the widows and orphans of officers who did reside within some one of the United States, respectively. On these resolutions of Congress it does not appear that the heirs of the Baron de Kalb can bottom any claim for five years' full pay as mentioned in their petition. By a resolution of Congress of the 21st of October, 1780, half-pay for life was grantJANUARY, 1821.

ed to officers in the service of the United States, alluded to in that resolution: that resolution does not include the case of the heirs of the Baron de Kalb. On the 26th of January, 1784, Congress resolved "that half-pay cannot be allowed to any officer, or to any class or denomination of officers, to whom it has not been heretofore expressly promised." The resolutions of Congress of the 21st of October, 1780, of the 22d of March, 1783, and of the 8th of March, 1785, allowing half-pay for life, or commutation thereof for five years' full pay, do not include this case of the petitioners. Their claim for five years' pay does not appear to be included in or provided for by any act or resolution of Congress.

This committee do further report that evidence has not been adduced to prove that any arrears of pay are due to the Baron de Kalb, and that therefore his heirs, the petitioners, have not any just claim against the United States for any arrears of pay said to be due to their late father, the Baron de Kalb; that the claim of the heirs of the Baron de Kalb to the full pay of five years on account of the services of the Baron to the United States is not bottomed on any act or resolution of Congress, and is therefore inadmissible, and ought not to be allowed. By the report from the Department of the Treasury alluded to, it appears that, on reference to the register of officers of the Revolutionary army returned as entitled to land, the name of the Baron de Kalb is entitled to land, for which application is to be made to the Department of War.

This committee, after consideration of this case of the petitioners, and taking into view the circumstances attending it, are of opinion that it does not appear that any arrears of pay are due to the late Baron de Kalb, as intimated by the petitioners in their petition; that it does not appear that the petitioners, heirs of the Baron de Kalb, have any just claim against the United States for five years' pay in consequence of services by him performed to the United States; and therefore submit the following resolution:

Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioners, so far as relates to their claim of any arrears of pay supposed to be due to their late father, the Baron de Kalb, and so far as relates to their claim of pay for five years in consequence of services of their late father, the Baron de Kalb, to the United States, be not granted; and that the petitioners have leave to withdraw so much of their said petition as relates to their claim for land as heirs of the Baron de Kalb, so that they may apply to the Department of War for the same.

MISSOURI.

Mr. ARCHER, of Virginia, moved that the House do now proceed to consider the resolution submitted by him on the 4th instant, in relation to the judicial condition of the Territory of Missouri.

On the question being taken, Will the House now consider the said resolution? it was determined in the negative-yeas 66, nays 78, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Abbot, Alexander, Allen of Tennessee, Anderson, Archer of Maryland, Archer of Virginia, Ball, Barbour, Brevard, Brown, Bryan, Burton, Burwell, Butler of Louisiana, Cannon, Cobb, Cocke, Cook, Crawford, Crowell, Culpeper, Cuthbert, Davidson, Earle, Edwards of North Carolina, Fisher, Floyd, Garnett, Gray, Gross of New York, Hooks, Jackson, Johnson, Jones of Virginia, Jones of Tennessee, Kin

H. or R.

Delaware, McLean of Kentucky, Meigs, Metcalf, T. L. Moore, Neale, Nelson of Virginia, Parker of Virginia, Pinckney, Rankin, Reed, Rhea, Robertson, Settle, Simkins, Smith of New Jersey, Smith of Maryland, A. Smyth of Virginia, Swearingen, Terrell, Trimble, Tucker of Virginia, Walker, Warfield, Williams of Virginia, and Williams of North Carolina-68.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Allen of Massachusetts, Allen of New York, Baldwin, Bateman, Beecher, Boden, Brush, Buffum, Campbell, Clagett, Clark, Crafts, Cushman, Dane, Darlington, Dennison, Dickinson, Eddy, Edwards of Connecticut, Edwards of Pennsylvania, Fay, Folger, Foot, Forrest, Fuller, Gorham, Gross of Pennsylvania, Hall of New York, Hardin, Hemphill, Hendricks, Herrick, Hibshman, Hill, Hostetter, Kinsley, Lathrop, Lincoln, Maclay, McCullough, Mallary, Marchand, Monell, R. Moore, S. Moore, Morton, Moseley, Murray, Nelson of Massachusetts, Parker of Mass., Patterson, Philson, Plumer, Rich, Richards, Richmond, Rogers, Ross, Russ, Sergeant, Silsbee, Sloan, Southard, Stevens, Storrs, Street, Strong of Vermont, Strong of New York, Tomlinson, Tracy, Udree, Upham, Van Rensselaer, Wallace, Wendover, Whitman, and Wood-78.

The House proceeded to consider the resolution submitted yesterday by Mr. TRIMBLE; and, the same being again read, was agreed to.

REDUCTION OF THE ARMY.

The House then again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, (Mr. WHITMAN in the chair,) on the bill to reduce the Military Peace Establishment of the United States.

Mr. WILLIAMS, in an address of about two hours, concluded the speech which he yesterday commenced, in favor of a reduction of the Army; which speech is given entire in preceding pages.

Mr. A. SMYTH, of Virginia, then rose, and moved the following as an amendment to (substitute for) the bill under consideration:

Be it enacted, &c., That, from and after the first day of May next, the Military Peace Establishment of the United States shall consist of six thousand noncommissioned officers, musicians, and privates, in such proportions of artillery, light artillery, infantry, and riflemen, as the President of the United States shall