doubt that their cause, like Christianity, will yet prevail. (Enthusiastic cheers.)

Our cause commends itself. But it is also commended by our candidates. (Cheers.) In all that makes the eminent civilian or the accomplished statesman fit for the responsibilities of government, they will proudly compare with any of their competitors (applause), while they are dear to our hearts as able, welltried, loyal supporters of those vital principles of Freedom which we seek to establish under the Constitution of the United States. (Applause.) In the Senate, Mr. Hale (cheers) is admitted to be foremost in aptitude and readiness of debate, whether in the general legislation of the country, or in the constant and valiant championship of our cause. (Applause.) His genial and sun-like nature irradiates the antagonism of political controversy (cheers), while his active and practical mind, richly stored with various experience, never fails to render good service. (Great cheering.)

Of Mr. Julian, our candidate for the Vice-Presidency ("Hear! hear!"), let me say simply that, in ability and devotion to our principles, he is a worthy compeer of Mr. Hale. To vote for such men will itself be a pleasure. But it will be doubly so when we reflect that in this way we bear our testimony to a noble cause, with which the happiness, welfare and fame of our country are indissolubly connected. (Repeated and enthusiastic cheers.)

With such a cause and such candidates, let no man be disheartened. The tempest may blow, but ours is a life-boat, which cannot be harmed by wind or wave.

The genius of Liberty sits at the helm. I hear her voice of cheer saying, "Whoso sails with me comes

to shore."

Mr. Sumner resumed his seat amid the heartiest and long protracted applause.

CIVIL SUPERINTENDENTS OF ARMORIES.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 23D FEB UARY, 1853, ON THE PROPOSITION TO CHANGE THE SUPER

INTENDENTS OF ARMORIES.

The Army Appropriation Bill being under discussion, Mr. Davis, of Massachusetts, moved the following amendment :

"The Act of Congress, approved August 23, 1842, shall be so modified, that the President may, if in his opinion the public interest demands it, place over any of the armories a Superintendent who does not belong to the Army."

In the course of the debate Mr. Sumner spoke as follows:

MR. SUMNER.- Mr. President, I do not desire to speak upon the general subject of the manufacture of arms under the authority of the United States, which has been opened in debate by honorable Senators. What I have to say will be on the precise question before the Senate, and nothing else. That question as I understand it, is on the amendment proposed by my colleague [Mr. Davis], according to which the act of 1842 is to be so far modified that the President, in his discretion, may place over the armories persons not of the army leaving it, therefore to his judgment to determine whether the superintendent shall be a military man or a civilian. This is all.

The Senate has been exhorted not to act precipitately; but the character of this proposition excludes all idea of precipitation. We do not determine absolutely that the system shall be changed, but simply that it may be changed in the discretion of the President. This discretion, which naturally will be exercised only after ample inquiry, stands in the way of all precipitation; and this is my answer to the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Shields].

Again it is urged that under a military head, the armories are better administered than they would be under a civil head, and that the arms are better and cheaper made; and here my friend from South Carolina, who sits before me [Mr. Butler], dwelt with his accustomed glow upon the success with which this manufacture has been conducted at the national armories, and the extent to which it has been recognized in Europe. But, sir, on the precise question now before you, the merits of the armories are not involved. We do not undertake to judge the military superintendents or their works. The determination of this question is referred to the President; and this is my answer to the Senator from South Carolina.

The objections to this amendment of my colleague, then, seem to disappear. But there are two distinct arguments in its favor, which, at the present moment, do not seem to me susceptible of any answer.

In the first place, there are complaints against the existing system which ought to be heard. A memorial from five hundred legal voters of Springfield, now on your table, bears testimony to them. Letters addressed to myself and others, from persons whose opinions I am bound to regard, set them forth sometimes in very

strong language. The administration of the arsenal at Springfield is commended by many, but there are others who judge it differently. As now conducted, it is represented by some to be the seat of oppressive conduct, and the occasion of heart-burnings and strife, often running into the local politics. In the eyes of some, this arsenal is now little better than a sore on that beautiful town. Now, on these complaints and allegations I express no opinion. I do not affirm their truth or their untruth. What I know of the Superintendent, makes it difficult for me to believe that any thing unjust, oppressive, or hard, could proceed from him. But the whole case justifies inquiry at least, and such will be secured by the proposition now before the Senate. This is the smallest thing we can do.

But this proposition is enforced by another consideration which seems to me entitled to peculiar weight. I have nothing to say now on the general question of reducing the army or modifying the existing military system. But I do submit confidently that the genius of our institutions favors civil life rather than military life; and that, in harmony with this, it is our duty, whenever the public interests will permit, to limit and restrain the sphere of military influences. This is not a military monarchy, where the soldier is supreme, but a republic, where the soldier yields to the civilian. But the law, as it now stands, gives to the soldier an absolute preference in a service which is not military, and which from its nature, seems to belong to civil life. Now the manufacture of arms is a mechanical pursuit, and for myself, I can see no reason why it should not be placed in charge of one bred to the