Kitabı oku: «Abridgement of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 (4 of 16 vol.)», sayfa 122

Mr. Gold premised, that he did not rise to enter into the general policy of the war; nor could he deny it to be the duty of those who have declared the war, to provide an army to carry it on. But he added, it is better for the army to be augmented by very liberal bounties and wages, than that important principles should be violated and an inroad made upon the great relations and interests of society. Are gentlemen aware how extensive is the province of master and apprentice? How wide-spread the relation in the community? A sensation will be produced which gentlemen seem not to have anticipated. The respective States have, with studious care, legislated upon and regulated the various duties and obligations of masters and apprentices. Under those laws, a clear obligation is created upon the apprentice to serve till of age; and in some States, to compensate for absence or desertion during the stipulated apprenticeship; for a faithful performance, the parent or guardian becomes responsible; and for non-performance, liable for damages to the master. Can the authors of this bill imagine that those solemn obligations contained in indentures of apprenticeship, will dissolve and vanish under the charm of the bill? Can the fundamental principles of the constitution, rendering contracts sacred, be thus uprooted and destroyed? Can this bill deprive the master of his action, secured to him by the laws of the State, against the master or guardian for absence or desertion of the apprentice? Here is a most serious bearing upon the laws of the States, regulating this important relation. But gentlemen allege necessity; the army must be filled up; officers are imposed on by fraudulent minors, who receive the bounty, and then claim a release upon the plea of non-age. In answer, let gentlemen beware how they yield to this fancied plea of necessity. All history attests the danger of yielding essential principles to State necessities; to temporary pressure and impulses; such precedents become infinitely mischievous in society. No fancied benefit can compensate for the evil of such examples. How easy is it to remove much of the complaints by providing that the minor, who shall impose upon the recruiting officer, shall refund the bounty he received before he shall receive his discharge. Such a provision would be just, and not violate general principles.

Mr. Little. – In removing one evil, Mr. Chairman, let us beware that we do not substitute a greater. The object of the section proposed to be stricken out of the bill on your table, and now under consideration, is to fill up the ranks of your army. From every attention I have been able to bestow on this subject, which, permit me to say, I am anxiously desirous, as much so, I trust, as any gentleman in this committee, to see realized, will, if returned in its present shape, in my humble opinion, be productive of much evil, and perhaps of little good. You receive into the army, by voluntary enlistment, that description of our fellow-citizens, at a time of life to them the most interesting and auspicious as respects their future pursuits and welfare. I have always been given to understand that the camp is but illy calculated in those stations which they only can fill in the army, either to improve their understandings or perfect them in such habits as are calculated to acquire a respectable subsistence, or fit them for the domestic duties of their future lives. In the course of nature, they, it may be truly said, constitute the future strength and glory of every country. The laws of this land render every act of theirs illegitimate. Abstract from the consideration of a soldier, for which they are only rendered fit from their corporeal powers, everything with them is premature; if forced into existence, like the flower or fruit unseasonably raised in a hot-bed, wears the external qualities, but, in fragrance and taste, is unnatural and insipid.

Sir, have we not some reason to doubt the constitutionality of this section. In its operation, it evidently will vitiate contracts, which ought always to be held sacred, solemnly and voluntarily entered into by the parent or guardian with the matter of an apprentice, reciprocally beneficial, founded on the most laudable and praiseworthy principles, on the faithful performance of which materially depends the future welfare of the youth, to which I believe may reasonably be added the comforts and good order of society. Do we not know, Mr. Chairman, that, at that period of their lives and servitude, in which you make them liable, if this section is retained, to be drawn from the service of their masters, that then, and only then, are they enabled and become qualified to make some remuneration for the pains and attention paid to their improvement and instruction by the worthy and industrious mechanic or manufacturer; and will you, by this unpropitious act, endanger the future happiness of the former, and withhold that just reward due to the industry of the latter? You annihilate this contract, which ought to be held, if possible, inviolate by the Government. Every principle of justice and sound policy dictates its rigid fulfilment. Are we not aware, sir, of the immense sums now invested and actively employed in the different manufactories distributed over our extensive country? Do we not know that the manual labor of them is conducted principally by such who now are, or will in time, come within the provision of this section of your bill? Have this Government, and the people of this country, no interest in the prosperity of these manufactories? I have been always taught, and for one do religiously believe, on their materials virtually depends the completion of our independence as a nation. Let me entreat you to reflect before you hazard this dangerous experiment, lest, in the adoption of this hitherto novel principle, and in its operation, you may endanger the safety, or, at least, the prosperity of our Republic, by giving its manufactories a vital stab.

Sundry other amendments were proposed in the committee, after the bill was reported to the House, and negatived. The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading.

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.