Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856, Vol. 4 (of 16)

by United States. Congress

Saturday, November 21.

Pay of the Army.

An engrossed bill "concerning the pay of the non-commissioned officers, musicians, privates, and others of the Army, and for other purposes," was read the third time.

Mr. Quincy.—Mr. Speaker, I am sensible that I owe an apology for addressing you at so early a period of the session, and so soon after taking my seat, if not to the House at least to my particular constituents. It is well known to them, at least to very many of them, for I have taken no pains to conceal the intention, that I came to this session of Congress with a settled determination to take no part in the deliberation of the House. I had adopted this resolution, not so much from a sense of self-respect, as of public duty. Seven years' experience in the business of this House, has convinced me that from this side of the House all argument is hopeless; that whatever a majority has determined to do, it will do in spite of any moral suggestion, or any illustration made in this quarter. Whether it be from the nature of man, or whether it be from the particular provisions of our constitution, I know not, but the experience of my political life has perfectly convinced me of this fact, that the will of the Cabinet is the law of the land. Under these impressions, I have felt it my duty not to deceive my constituents; and had, therefore, resolved by no act or expression of mine, in any way, to countenance the belief, that any representation I could make on this floor could be useful to them, or that I could serve them any farther than by a silent vote. Even now, sir, it is not my intention to enter into this discussion. I shall present you my thoughts rather by way of protest than of argument. And I shall not trouble myself afterwards with any cavils that may be made; neither by whom, nor in what manner.

I should not have deviated from the resolution of which I have spoken, were it not for what appears to me the atrocity of the principle, and the magnitude of the mischief contained in the provisions of this bill. When I speak of the principle as atrocious, I beg distinctly to be understood as not impeaching the motives of any gentlemen, or representing them as advocating an atrocious principle. I speak only of the manner in which the object presents itself to my moral view.

It is the principle contained in the third section of the bill of which I speak. That section provides, that "every person above the age of eighteen years, who shall be enlisted by any officer, shall be held in the service of the United States during the period of such enlistment; any thing in any act to the contrary notwithstanding." The nature of this provision is apparent, its tendency is not denied. It is to seduce minors of all descriptions, be they wards, apprentices, or children, from the service of their guardians, masters, and parents. On this principle, I rest my objection to the bill. I meddle not with the nature of the war. Nor is it because I am hostile to this war, both in its principle and its conduct, that I at present make any objection to the provisions of the bill. I say nothing against its waste of public money. If eight dollars a month for the private be not enough, take sixteen dollars. If that be not enough take twenty. Economy is not my difficulty. Nor do I think much of that objection of which my honorable friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Milnor) seemed to think a great deal; the liberation of debtors from their obligations. So far as relates to the present argument, without any objection from me, you may take what temptations you please, and apply them to the ordinary haunts for enlistment—clear the jails—exhaust the brothel—make a desert of the tippling shop—lay what snares you please for overgrown vice, for lunacy, which is of full age, and idiocy out of its time.

But here stop. Touch not private right—regard the sacred ties of guardian and master—corrupt not our youth—listen to the necessities of our mechanics and manufacturers—have compassion for the tears of parents.

In order to give a clear view of my subject, I shall consider it under three aspects—its absurdity—its inequality—its immorality.

In remarking on the absurdity of this principle it is necessary to recur to that part of the Message of the President of the United States at the opening of the present session of Congress, which introduced the objects proposed in this bill to the consideration of the House; and to observe the strange and left-handed conclusions it contains. The paragraph to which I allude is the following:

"With a view to that vigorous prosecution of the war, to which our national faculties are adequate, the attention of Congress will be particularly drawn to the insufficiency of existing provisions for filling up the Military Establishment. Such is the happy condition of our country, arising from the facility of subsistence and the high wages for every species of occupation, that, notwithstanding the augmented inducements provided at the last session, a partial success only has attended the recruiting service. The deficiency has been necessarily supplied during the campaign, by other than regular troops, with all the inconveniences and expense incident to them. The remedy lies in establishing more favorably for the private soldier, the proportion between his recompense and the term of enlistment. And it is a subject which cannot too soon or too seriously be taken into consideration."

Mr. Speaker—What a picture of felicity has the President of the United States here drawn in describing the situation of the yeomanry of this country! Their condition happy—subsistence easy—wages high—full employ. To such favored beings what would be the suggestions of love, truly parental? Surely that so much happiness should not be put at hazard. That innocence should not be tempted to scenes of guilt. That the prospering ploughshare should not be exchanged for the sword. Such would be the lessons of parental love. And such will always be the lessons which the President of the United States will teach in such a state of things, whenever a father of his country is at the head of the nation. Alas! Mr. Speaker, how different is this Message! The burden of the thought is, how to decoy the happy yeomen from home, from peace, and prosperity, to scenes of blood—how to bait the man-trap; what inducements shall be held forth to avarice, which neither virtue nor habit, nor wise influences, can resist. But this is not the whole. Our children are to be seduced from their parents. Apprentices are invited to abandon their masters. A legislative sanction is offered to perfidy and treachery. Bounty and wages to filial disobedience. Such are the moral means by which a war, not of defence or of necessity, but of pride and ambition, should be prosecuted. Fit means to such an end.

The absurdity of this bill consists in this: in supposing these provisions to be the remedy for the evil, of which the President complains. The difficulty is, that men cannot be enlisted. The remedy proposed is, more money—and legislative liberty to corrupt our youth. And how is this proved to be a remedy? Why it has been told us, on the other side of the House, that this is the thing they do in France. That the age between eighteen and twenty-one is the best age to make soldiers. That it is the most favorite age, in Bonaparte's conscription. Well, sir, what then? Are we in France? Is Napoleon our king? Or is he the President of the United States? The style in which this example has been urged on the House, recalls to my recollection very strongly a caricature print which was much circulated in the early period of our Revolutionary war. The picture represented America as a hale youth, about eighteen or twenty-one, with a huge purse in his pocket. Lord North, with a pistol at his breast, was saying "deliver your money." George the Third, pointing at the young man, and, speaking to Lord North, said, "I give you that man's money for my use." Behind the whole group was a Frenchman capering, rubbing his hands for joy, and exclaiming, "Be Gar! just so in France!" Now, Mr. Speaker, I have no manner of doubt, that the day that this act passes, and the whole class of our Northern youth is made subject to the bribes of your recruiting officers, that there will be thousands of Frenchmen in these United States, rubbing their hands for joy, and exclaiming, "Be Gar! just so in France." Sir, the great mistake of this whole project lies in this: that French maxims are applied to American States. Now it ought never to be lost sight of by the legislators of this country, that the people of it are not and never can be Frenchmen—and, on the contrary, that they are, and can never be any thing else than freemen.

The true source of the absurdity of this bill, is a mistake in the nature of the evil. The President of the United States tells us that the Administration have not sufficient men for their armies. The reason is, he adds, the want of pecuniary motive. In this lies the error. It is not pecuniary motive that is wanting to fill your armies. It is moral motive in which you are deficient. Sir, whatever difference of opinion may exist among the happy and wise yeomanry of New England, in relation to the principle and necessity of this war, there is very little, or at least much less diversity of sentiment, concerning the invasion of Canada, as a means of prosecuting it. They do not want Canada as an object of ambition; they do not want it as an object of plunder. They see no imaginable connection between the conquest of that province and the attainment of those commercial rights which were the pretended objects of the war. On the contrary, they see, and very plainly too, that if our Cabinet be gratified in the object of its ambition, and Canada become a conquered province, that an apology is immediately given for extending and maintaining in that country a large military force; under pretence of preserving the conquered territories—really, with a view to overawe adjoining States. With this view of that project the yeomanry of New England want that moral motive which will alone, in that country, fill your armies with men worthy enlisting. They have no desire to be the tools of the ambition of any man, or any set of men. Schemes and conquest have no charms for them.

Abandon your projects of invasion; throw your shield over the seaboard and the frontier; awe into silence the Indians in your territory; fortify your cities; take the shackles from your commerce; give us ships and seamen; and show the people of that country a wise object of warfare; and there will be no want of men, money, or spirit.

I proceed to my second objection, which was to the inequality of the operation of the provisions of this bill. It is never to be forgotten, in the conduct of the Government of these United States, that it is a political association of independent sovereignties, greatly differing in respect of wealth, resource, enterprise, extent of territory, and preparation of arms. It ought, also, never to be forgotten, that the proportion of physical force which nature has given does not lie within precisely the same line of division with the proportion of political influence which the constitution has provided. Now, sir, wise men, conducting a political association thus constructed, ought always to have mainly in view, not to disgust any of the great sections of the country, either in regard to their interests, their habits, or their prejudices. Particularly ought they to be cautious not to burden any of the great sections in a way peculiarly odious to them, and in which the residue of the States cannot be partakers, or at least only in a very small degree. I think this principle of political action is incontrovertible. Now, sir, of all the distinctions which exist in these United States, that which results from the character of the labor in different parts of the country, is the most obvious and critical. In the Southern States, all the laborious industry of the country is conducted by slaves; in the Northern States it is conducted by the yeomanry, their apprentices, or children. The truth is, that the only real property, in the labor of others, which exists in the Northern States, is that which is possessed in that of minors—the very class of which, at its most valuable period, this law proposes to divest them. The planter of the South can look round upon his fifty, his hundred, and his thousand of human beings, and say, These are my property. The farmer of the North has only one or two ewe lambs—his children—of which he can say, and say with pride, like the Roman matron, "These are my ornaments." Yet these, this bill proposes to take from him, or (what is the same thing) proposes to corrupt them—to bribe them out of his service; and that, too, at the very age when the desire of freedom is the most active, and the splendor of false glory the most enticing. Yet, your slaves are safe; there is no project for their manumission in the bill. The husbandman of the North, the mechanic, the manufacturer, shall have the property he holds in the minors subject to him put to hazard. Your property in the labor of others is safe. Where is the justice—where the equality—of such a provision?

It is very well known in our country—indeed it is obvious, from the very nature of the thing—that the exact period of life at which the temptation of this law begins to operate upon the minor, is the moment when his services begin to be the most useful to the parent or master. Until the age of 18, the boy has hardly paid to the parent or master the cost of his clothing and education. Between the age of 18 and 20, is just the period of profit to the father and master. It is also the period at which, from the approximation towards manhood, service begins to grow irksome, and the desire of liberty powerful. The passions are then, also, in their most ungoverned sway; and the judgment, not yet ripe, can easily be infatuated and corrupted by the vain dreams of military glory. At this period, your law appears with its instruments of seduction. It offers freedom to the minor's desire of liberty—plunder to his avarice—glory to his weakness. In short, it offers bounty and wages for disobedience to his natural or social obligations. This is a true view of this law. That it will have that full operation which its advocates hope and expect—that it will fill your armies with runaways from their masters and fathers—I do not believe; but, that it will have a very great operation, I know. The temptation to some of our youth will be irresistible. With my consent, they shall never be exposed to it.

Mr. Speaker, I hope what I am now about to say will not be construed into a threat. It is not uttered in that spirit; but only to evince the strength of my convictions concerning the effect of the provisions of this law on the hopes of New England, particularly of Massachusetts. But pass it, and if the Legislatures of the injured States do not come down upon your recruiting officers with the old laws against kidnapping and man-stealing, they are false to themselves, their posterity, and their country.

Mr. Fisk expressed the astonishment he felt at the observation which had fallen from the gentleman last up. He certainly agreed with the gentleman in one thing: that those who are in pursuit of a favorite object frequently overleap the bounds of reason and decorum in support of it. Now, it had been a favorite object with that gentleman to shield the British Government from blame; and it was an object which he certainly pursued with the greatest ardor and anxiety. In the address of that gentleman's political friends, in Congress, to their constituents, subsequent to the declaration of war, it had been deceptively said, that a disposition existed in the British Government to make an arrangement on the subject of impressment. Now, sir, that the ground is taken from under them, we hear that the object of the war is an unrighteous one, and we are guilty of waging it. Is it indeed guilty to defend our country? said Mr. F. The gentleman would overawe the Indians. Sir, the most innocent party in the war against us is the savage himself. How comes he in the ranks against us, with his tomahawk and scalping knife? Why is he impelled to shed our blood? Why has the gentleman shielded British instigation of their outrages?

Again, sir, has the gentleman no feeling for the sufferings, no ear for the groans of our suffering seamen? Has he no sympathy for those relations of life, from which the seamen is torn away, and for that moral sentiment which is violated in that outrage—and are we guilty because we seek to shield our citizens from it? Are we guilty because we resist the British scalping knife? Recall the year '98 to your recollection, sir, and the pompous display of energy at that day, and the armies raised—to fight whom?—a few miserable Frenchmen whom they could catch at sea. War was then a mere amusement. Why, that we are now at war with the nation who has been seizing our property, capturing our citizens, and carrying them into slavery—why are our means for carrying on war to be limited?

As to the provision of this bill so much objected to, was it esteemed such a violation of all right and principle in the commencement of the Revolution to take children of sixteen years of age from their parents? That was a period when the youth of the country were invited to the field. I was one who accepted the invitation, and I have never regretted it. But, says the gentleman, will you take the child from the parent? Sir, which excites the most tears—a child leaving his parent to defend his country, or a parent torn from his family and his country to fight for a foreign power? The truth is, that most of those who object to this bill would destroy all the means of carrying on the war, if they could. It was not thought immoral in the war of the Revolution to take youths of this age, nor were they the least efficient part of our army.

Mr. D. R. Williams said, if it was possible for him to keep down those feelings of indignation which pressed upon his mind, in what he had now to offer, he would speak with due respect to the orders of the House, and not infringe its privileges. He wished, indeed, he had not occasion to speak; but, sir, said he, it is my misfortune to be the Chairman of the Military Committee, more, Mr. Speaker, by your partiality than by any merit of mine. I am compelled to rise. I have been stigmatized by the gentleman (Mr. Quincy) as the introducer into this House of an atrocious principle. If such language comports with our rules of order, I must submit, seeing it is uttered where he is protected; but, sir, I must pronounce it a libel on myself, and throw it back on him who uttered it, as a foul, atrocious libel on the committee. Sir, I came here not disposed to use such language; nothing but extreme injury should extort it from me. I wish that the gentleman had kept the resolve he informed us he had formed; as he could not do so, I would that he had been good enough to spare me from the acrimony of his remarks. Atrocity! The advocate of an atrocious principle! Let the gentleman recur to those who originated this principle; let him go back to the day of the Revolution, and damn the memory of the patriots of those times, the fruit of whose labors he so ill deserves to enjoy. The provisions of those days authorized the enlistment of all over the age of sixteen years. Nor does the statement which the gentleman from New York made alter the case, for if there be an increase of population since the Revolution, there appears to be a correspondent deterioration of patriotism. The gentleman from Massachusetts admits that a necessity may exist to justify the course proposed by the bill. Well, sir, was there ever a crisis calling on a people for vigorous exertions more awful than that which impends over us now? Now, when a vile spirit of party has gone abroad and distracted the Union? Now, that the State which the gentleman represents is almost in arms against us? And, in such a state of things are we to be told that we are espousing an atrocious principle, because we are seeking for the means to defend our country? The will of the President is the law of the land, says the gentleman. How can he expect his arguments to be attended to, when the first word he utters after taking his seat is to insult and abuse every one opposed to him in opinion. I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, I ask that of the House, for the language I am compelled to use; but so long as I am a man, so help me God, when I am told I am actuated by an atrocious principle, I will throw it back in the teeth of the assertor as an atrocious falsehood. Look back on the principle adopted by the friends of that gentleman—I wish I could say who were his friends—I do not call the honest federalist, who is willing to support his country's rights, his friend—even in England, the nation from which he talks of receiving his religion and morality, and I might add, his ideas of our rights—even in that country they do not prevent enlistment of minors—that is, they are not discharged on the ground of minority. I have said before, sir, that we had examples in our own Government, drawn not to be sure from the purest times, but which more than covered the whole case. A law was passed in 1798 which authorized the enlistment not only, of minors but every description of persons whom the President of the United States thought proper to have enlisted—which authorized him to send his recruiting sergeants into every family and take those who suited him best. This was the principle of his friends. Does the gentleman say that it was atrocious in 1798 to defend ourselves against the French? But it has become so now, seeing the defence we seek is against the English. The gentleman has said we act on an absurd principle; that we have mistaken the means of carrying on the war to effect: we want the moral means. By this I presume he would be understood that the people are opposed to the war, particularly to our land operations. There seems then to be no moral objection to the war on the ocean. And, sir, if it be not immoral to support the war on the ocean, on what possible principle can it be immoral, in the same cause, to support it on the land? The war on both elements is for the same object; not as the gentleman says, to rob and plunder in Canada, but, according to the motto of the gallant Captain Porter, for "free trade and sailors' rights."

Mr. Pitkin remarked that the power given to a recruiting officer to enlist minors was a new principle. It had not been acted upon before, or since the Revolution—this is a new mode of raising an army; were gentlemen prepared to adopt this new principle? Although by the resolves of the Congress of 1776, minors could be enlisted, yet apprentices were exempted—and if any were enlisted, yet, on proper application, they were discharged, unless it could be shown the enlistment was with the consent of their masters or guardians. By the law of '98, the President certainly could direct relative to the age and size of a recruit—yet to whom did he apply? Not to apprentices—not to wards—and then if an officer enlisted an apprentice without the consent of his master, he could be taken away from him by the writ of habeas corpus and the officer held liable for damages. The eleventh section of the law for raising an additional military force contained a similar provision, and it was also necessary the consent of the master or guardian should be in writing.

Mr. P. did not intend to meddle at all with the policy of war—he should confine himself to the consideration of the most important principle contained in the third section of the bill. The effect of this bill goes to infringe all the State laws. They all provide for the relations which exist between a master and his apprentice—a guardian and his ward; if the apprentice runs away he can be procured and brought back; and some of the States provide, that when the apprentice comes again into the possession of his master, that he shall serve not only the time lost, but an extra time, to remunerate his master by these services for the losses he has sustained. If you take away his apprentice you deprive him of his property—this is a loss to the master, or he must recover where the services are due; that is, of the parent or guardian, who are one of the contracting parties to the indentures—and where is the remedy? Will not the officer be also liable to the State laws? Does not the constitution say, no laws shall be passed abrogating contracts? This bill will in its operation sanction the violation of contracts, or it means nothing—it sanctions the right to take away the property of guardians, parents or masters, without providing any compensation for the same. I repeat, you are introducing a new principle in the mode of administering Government. The pressure is also beyond comparison unequal on the Northern States. Do gentlemen plead the necessity of the case? Does a necessity exist superior to the laws? Are we to understand that the salus populi shall rule without control? If not, then what is meant by this grant to take the property of your constituents, and leave them no remedy for the injury? The honorable gentleman from South Carolina has referred to the practice of other nations. Great Britain herself never incorporated apprentices into her armies.

Mr. Williams admitted that apprentices were exempt—but minors were not.

Mr. Pitkin agreed but even when minors are enlisted without the consent of their guardians or masters, they can be released by the writ of habeas corpus. I believe that, in 1756, Great Britain passed an act which was designed to extend to only the colonies; it allowed indented servants to be enlisted into the army—but this act made provision for the master, if the compensation was claimed within so many months after enlistment, and the necessary facts were proved before any two justices of the peace. Whether this act was ever carried into effect I do not know—but I do know that compensation was provided for the property taken from the master in the person of, his servant.

Mr. Troup.—If a stranger in the gallery had listened to the member from Massachusetts, he would have supposed that the provision of the bill against which the gentleman's anathemas were most vehemently levelled, authorized the recruiting sergeant to enter the house of the citizen, drag from it the young man, and transport him, loaded with chains, (as is said to be the practice of one nation of Europe,) to the armies. Who would have supposed that the provisions merely authorized the recruiting sergeant to accept the voluntary service of the young man, between eighteen and twenty-one? The service due to the country, prior in point of time, paramount in obligation, must yield, says the gentleman, to the service due to the master, the parent, or the guardian. If, sir, in the days of Rome's greatness, if in the proud days of Grecian glory, the man could have been found base and hardy enough to withhold the young men from the public service, to turn them from the path of honor, or to restrain them from the field of fame, he would have been hurled from the Tarpeian Rock or consigned to the Cave of Trophonius. The young man is preferred here, not because he is preferred in France, but because his physical constitution and his moral temperament peculiarly qualify him for the arduous duties of the field and camp; bodily vigor and activity, ardor, enterprise, impetuosity; without family, and therefore without the cares which family involve. No wife, no helpless children. Without care, but for his country. Without fear, but for her dishonor. He is most eminently qualified for the duties of the camp and the field; all experience has proved it.

Mr. Macon said it appeared the House was now in a situation in which it had frequently been heretofore; that is, they take up a very small subject and make a very great one of it. The only question for discussion appeared to him to be, whether or not they would enlist into the Army young men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one. He was very sorry that, at this early period of the session, a discussion had been introduced into the House, which had at all times better be let alone, that of foreign influence. He did not mean to discuss it; but, if gentlemen were anxious for it, he was perfectly willing to set aside a day for the consideration of the subject, and go about it methodically. He regretted very much that the feature to which he had alluded had been inserted in the bill; because he had been in hopes that, on the question of raising the pay of the Army, they would, one and all, have manifested a disposition to support the rights of the country. In the hope that they would yet come to an agreement on the subject; that they could give some vote of unanimity in relation to the war, he should move for a recommitment of the bill, with a view to amend it by striking out the third section. It appeared to him that, until a man had acquired political rights, he ought not to be called on to defend his country. The gentleman from South Carolina says the principle of this section already exists in our militia laws. I admit it; and hence, I have always, when our militia laws have been under consideration, moved to strike out "eighteen" and insert "twenty-one." I hope, if we do not take recruits under twenty-one, we will alter the militia laws also, and let the country rely for its defence on those who manage its concerns. He hoped the House would consent to recommit the bill, and, in some one vote, show something like unanimity.

Mr. Randolph rose to speak at the same moment with Mr. Macon, but, being first seen by the Speaker, obtained the floor.

Mr. R. said that he was extremely happy, as he did not notice his friend from North Carolina, at the time of his rising—in which case he should certainly have given way to him according to custom—that he had caught the Speaker's eye first. I was about to rise, said Mr. R., for the purpose of making a similar motion; and there are considerations on which it is unnecessary for me to dwell, and towards which I will not even hint, that render it at least as agreeable to me that the motion for recommitment should come from that respectable and weighty quarter, rather than from myself. I shall vote for it upon the same grounds which would have induced me ultimately to vote against the bill; because it contains provisions, I might say principles, unsusceptible of modification, and, in my judgment, hostile to all those principles which I have hitherto entertained, and to which it is impossible for me to give the sanction of my support. I shall not vote against the bill, for some of the reasons urged by the gentleman from Massachusetts on my right, (Mr. Quincy,) with more of eloquence than temperance, and answered in a style not dissimilar by my worthy friend on my left, (Mr. Williams.) They both reminded me of a stroke of perhaps the only comic poet this country has produced:

"The more they injured their side,
The more argument they applied."

The gentleman from Massachusetts touched a chord, which, he ought to have known, was that which would insure the passage of this bill; which would excite a temper that would indispose the House to listen to the still small voice of conscience and of reason. I, sir, shall vote for the recommitment of this bill, and for reasons which I am almost ashamed to urge; which I hope to be excused for adducing. They have nothing to do with the question of impressment, of maritime war, of the invasion of Canada, of Indian warfare; but, sir, they are principles which, from length of time, I am sorry to say, have grown so obsolete, like some of the older statutes of those countries of more ancient date than ourselves, that, though I am not ashamed of them, I am almost ashamed to mention them—they are those professed by the Republican party in the year 1798, which I had the honor of attempting, at least, to support in those days—the principles, as reduced to record, of the present Chief Magistrate of our country in those days. In truth, it has been insinuated, if not asserted, with much more of candor than of logical address, that the principles of the bill are those of the former friends of the gentleman from Massachusetts on my left, from which, I suppose, that gentleman has, in some way or other, deserted. This goes to prove, as far as the authority of the gentleman from Vermont and of my worthy friend from South Carolina has influence, that a long course of opposition has instilled into the gentleman something of the principles which did not belong to his friends while in power; that he is a deserter from his party, and consequently that I have remained a faithful sentinel at my post. I did not expect to hear it said, sir, that this bill was not to be opposed because a similar bill had been passed in what used to be called the Reign of Terror. In other words, I did not expect to hear it stated that the principles of the Administration of the predecessor of Jefferson, which, I suppose, he would now be as ready to recant as any man in the nation, justified the bill; that it ought to be passed, because it was fashioned in conformity to such doctrines. It is now, sir, I think, some thirteen or fourteen years ago, since a similar question was agitated on the floor of this House, and it was my lot to be compelled to sustain the same side of the question which I sustain to-day—for I will not use the qualified term, attempt to sustain, against one of the proudest names in this country—against the man who now presides, I will not say with what splendor of abilities, at the head of the judicial department of our Government.[30] The House will readily agree that, plain must have been that question which could have been supported with such unequal odds; that strong must have been that side of the argument against such an advocate. It was one of those occasions on which the gentleman who then presided in the House declared "he never witnessed a more unpromising debate:" it was so—for it was one of those which tended to put that gentleman and his friends into the situation which so many of them—I will not say all—for there are some illustrious examples to the contrary—into the situation which many of them have since occupied. It was an assertion of the great fundamental principles of our Government against arbitrary, high-toned courtly notions. The party then in power had been nearly as long in office as the party now in power, and looked at the question pending before them, with a very different eye, while they wielded the sceptre, than that with which they look at the question now, when the sceptre is applied to their backs. I am sorry to say that I fear that the converse of the proposition is, in a great degree, true, and that those principles which I then supported, and which were the ground of the revolution of political sentiment in 1801 which thereafter ensued, have fallen, as it were, in abeyance; that, in fact, we have forgotten our oracle.

I have said, on a former occasion, and if I were Philip, I would employ a man to say it every day, that the people of this country, if ever they lose their liberties, will do it by sacrificing some great principle of free government to temporary passion. There are certain great principles, which if they be not held inviolate at all seasons, our liberty is gone. If we give them up, it is perfectly immaterial what is the character of our Sovereign; whether he be King or President, elective or hereditary—it is perfectly immaterial what is his character—we shall be slaves—it is not an elective government which will preserve us.

But I am afraid I have fallen somewhat into error, by wandering from the course I proposed. On the occasion to which I have alluded, I maintained that the provision of a bill then pending, similar to that I now object to, was arbitrary, unconstitutional and unjust, because it was in the nature of an ex post facto law. It is of the nature of an ex post facto law—it is more—it tends to exalt the military authority over the civil—it is this or it is nothing. If the section pronounce an ambiguous voice, to be construed according to expediency, then is there so much greater reason to recommit the bill, to reduce it to some shape which shall render it intelligible to the meanest capacity. It goes to alter the nature of a remedy—to impair the obligation of a contract. A man has contracted a debt, and his creditors arrest him. He enlists. He enlists through the grates of a prison, or within the limits of prison bounds. The contract between this man and the creditor is varied by the law, because the remedy of the creditor is changed. Let us not have a descant on the cruelty of imprisonment for debt, and the expediency of introducing other provisions on that subject. That is not the question. It is on a law for exempting a particular class of men from those penalties and provisions which attach to all other classes of society. The military of all classes in society, that class which we are about to exempt from the general provisions attaching to other classes, is that of which the people of this country have been led by all our writers, by all our authorities, to entertain the most watchful and justly founded jealousy. It is on principles somewhat analogous to these, or rather the same, much better enforced, that an opposition was maintained to a law, not dissimilar in its provisions from this, in the winter of 1799-1800.

In the fury and tempest of his passion, my friend from South Carolina seemed to overlook, what I thought he would be one of the last to forget, that we live in a limited Government, possessing restricted powers, which we cannot exceed. Has the constitution, with the most jealous scrutiny, defined the privileges of a member of this House, not permitting us to define our own, and made our principal privilege an exemption from arrest; and do we clothe ourselves with a power of exempting from arrest, ad libitum, a whole class of society—of creating a privileged order? We are, indeed, a privileged order, but we are privileged by the constitution. I ask the gentleman from South Carolina whence he derives the power of creating a privileged order, and, shall this assumption of power be attempted in favor of the military, of all other classes? In my opinion, sir, the section to which I have had reference is freighted with most fatal consequences. I will suppose a case. Suppose a man had a writ served upon him, and he afterwards enlists; that an escape warrant is taken out against him, and a contest ensues between the recruiting sergeant and the civil officer for this man, and that the civil authority supports its officer by calling out the force at its disposal. What would be the upshot? What is it to lead to? I need not state the consequences. These principles, sir, were urged thirteen years ago; they are urged now, in the same place, and on the same occasion. I cannot consent, in deference to any gentlemen, however great their zeal, to admit that I merely urged them at that time, from party views, to put down one description of persons in order to get into their warm berths. I cannot consent to such an admission, and, therefore, cannot give my support to any bill which contains such provisions. I have said this will be an ex post facto law. It is so; it operates not only after the right has accrued to the creditor to sue out his writ, but after it is in a course of execution. Let me put another case. Suppose that Congress were to pass a law that every malefactor under the sentence of death, who enlisted in the Army, should not have the sentence of the law executed on his body. Have you not as good a right to do that as to pass this law? Would you consent to see a scuffle at the gallows between the civil authority and the military for the body of that wretch?

I will put another case, sir. A son, who is the only support of a widowed and aged mother, in some moment of hilarity, perhaps of intoxication, led astray by the phantom Glory, enlists in the army of the United States. I speak of one who is a minor. Although I know that freemen of this country cannot be property in the sense in which a slave is property, yet, I do allow that the mother has a property in the time of that child; that he is under an obligation from which no human law can absolve him—an obligation imposed upon him by the maternal throes that issued him into life—by the nourishment drawn from the parent's breast—by the cherishing hand which fostered him through imbecility and infancy. You have not a right to take him—I hope, then, sir, that no question will be made of your power.

I put another case, said Mr. R. Although an apprentice and a minor are not property in the sense in which a slave is property, there is a class of men, unluckily, in certain parts of our country (in Philadelphia, for instance—I mean that class called "redemptioners,") who were sold but yesterday in the markets of that city. Is the gentleman who represents that district (Mr. Seybert) willing that they shall absolve themselves from their contract by enlisting in the Army? If he is, I am. A redemptioner sold in Philadelphia for a term of years, bought in the market as fairly as any other commodity—(I say fairly, because bought with his own consent, and as he believes, for his own advantage)—such a person, if tempted to enlist, will, unquestionably, prefer the pay and emolument of the soldier in your Army to his present situation. With regard to apprentices, I very much fear, sir, that those who enlist will, for the greater part, be of that description for whom their masters have advertised six cents reward, and forewarned all persons from harboring them. I remember, when a small boy, to have seen a series of prints by Hogarth, called "The Progress of Industry and Idleness." The gradations were not more regular than natural. The one ends with wealth, honor, and an eligible matrimonial connection with the daughter of his master, with whom he had been admitted into partnership; the other is brought up by the gibbet. Their names were Thomas Idle and William Goodchild. I believe, sir, that more of the Thomas Idles than of any other will enlist under this law, and I sincerely hope they will; for I very much fear that even William Goodchild, after he has gone through the discipline of a camp for five years, will be utterly unfit for any other species of employment. This is not all. There are other considerations, which I forbear to touch—which, I should have supposed, would have brought themselves home to the bosom of every gentleman in this House. Personal indisposition has prevented my attendance in this House, and I did not hear of this bill until last night. It was then mentioned to me by one who is fast in the old faith, and has often brought the House to a recollection of good old principles; and I did hope that they would this day have received more strenuous aid from that quarter than they have. I hope the House will refuse to pass the bill, if it were only to show that there is some one act of the Administration of 1799-1800, which the present possessors of power have not copied from their statute book. There remains only this, and the eight per cent. stock loan—and we are saved from the latter only by the infractions of that law, which we imperiously refused at the last session to repeal. It is the infractions of this law which has poured money into our coffers, and saved us from the disgrace of an eight per cent. loan. There is another part of this bill which strikes me as being inexpedient; but, as I do not wish to blend considerations of expediency with those of great and vital principles, I shall waive any thing on that head.

The question was then taken on the motion to recommit the bill, and lost. For recommitment 42, against it 62.

The question was then taken that the said bill do pass; and resolved in the affirmative—yeas 64, nays 37.