CHAPTER IV.
Mr. Dana’s speech against the military Academy.—Objections—it is an aristocratic institution.—1st in its selection of candidates—2nd in its monopoly of military commissions.—Its expenses are enormous and wholly disproportioned to any advantages to be derived from it.—Its positive evils, as it operates on the officers and on the private soldiers.—Mr. Dana might have added, that if this republic is in danger from any quarter, its danger lies in this institution.
Immediately after the funeral obsequies, Congress took up, on the 6th of March, the bill making appropriations for the Military Academy at West Point. Mr. Hale of New Hampshire, one of the best debaters in the House, moved to strike out the appropriation from the bill. On this occasion, Mr. Dana of New York delivered a powerful speech in favor of the motion. The intrinsic value of this speech entitles it to a place in our book, so that its home truths may be duly considered by all who read books or public documents. The institution itself should be given away to the regents of the University of New York, or to some literary institution, and no longer be connected with the general government. But we proceed to lay before the reader extracts from this elegant speech.
Mr. Dana said: My first objection to the academy is, that it is an aristocratic institution. It is aristocratic in its nature and character. It gives to a few individuals privileges which it denies to the many. Out of a population of eighteen or twenty millions, about one hundred individuals are annually selected as the exclusive recipients of the national bounty, and are paid and educated at the public expense, without making the least return for the benefits they receive. All other persons who draw pay or salaries from the government, perform services of some kind—often perhaps very inadequate but the cadets do nothing for the public; make no return whatever. Their pay and education are mere gratuities. Is it just, or right, or republican, thus to pamper a few at the expense of the community?
The institution is aristocratic in the manner of selecting the cadets. They are nominated and virtually appointed by members of Congress. The privilege of appointing a cadet has become an appendage of a seat in this House. A member is thus enabled, at the public expense, to provide for a relative, dependant, or favorite, by quartering him for life upon the treasury. He thus enjoys a patronage almost equal to his pay. Why should he have this extra privilege? Are not members sufficiently compensated for their services? If not, increase their pay; but do not suffer them to quarter their dependants upon the public. Such a privilege will be abused; it cannot exist without abuse. It is not only unjust to the community, but it is injurious to this House. Congress is called upon to legislate continually in relation to the academy; and will not such a patronage tend unconsciously to bias the judgment of members, however pure their intentions? It is not in the nature of man to be entirely impartial and indifferent when his own interests are involved. But even if he succeeds in divesting himself of every improper influence, and acts with the strictest justice and propriety, his country’s good his only object, he will be likely to gain little credit by it; he will still be suspected. Men incapable of acting with the like nobleness themselves will be slow to believe it of others. I do not doubt that every member will act on this subject from the purest motives; but if we would stand well with the country—if we would have full credit for disinterestedness with the people, we ought to divest ourselves of this patronage.
Again, sir, if this power be confined without check or control to members of Congress, will there not be danger of the institution being aristocratic in the persons selected as cadets? Whom will a member be most likely to nominate? Will it not be a son or relative, or some one dependent for support upon the member?—or, if there happens to be none such, the son or friend of some wealthy or influential constituent whose influence the member desires to secure? I would rejoice to find it otherwise. But when we examine the roll of cadets, and compare it with the lists of members of Congress, we find such a coincidence of names as I cannot attribute wholly to accident; there must have been some relationship between them to produce such a striking family likeness.
[Mr. Giddings. I wish to state a fact for the information of the gentleman. Some years ago, being applied to to nominate a cadet for my district, and having at that time a son of the proper age to enter the academy, I wrote to many of the prominent men of my district to send me the name of a candidate, and could not procure one.]
Mr. Dana. The district of the gentleman from Ohio appears to a be very peculiar one in many respects. Unless I am greatly mistaken, relatives and connexions of many men of wealth and high stations have been educated at the public expense at West Point, and the privilege has been highly coveted and eagerly sought by them generally, the single instance of the constituents of the gentleman from Ohio to the contrary notwithstanding. I am entirely opposed to the whole system of educating any person, or class of persons, at the public expense; but if some must be so educated, let them be selected for their merits—for their talents and virtues; give the preference to the poor and to the orphan—they are the most needy and deserving—instead of bestowing the national bounty on the rich and influential, who have other means of education. I admit there have been many instances in which members, waiving all selfish considerations, (and I honor them for it,) have selected the most meritorious candidate; but as a general rule, in this contest for patronage between wealth and power on the one side, and poverty on the other, it needs not the gift of prophesy to determine which will triumph. If this Academy shall be continued, I hope that, at least, its organization will be so changed as to secure to the poor a fair participation in its benefits.