Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

1549

MAY 24, 1836.}

OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS.

Fortification Bill.

that we shall bring into this debate too ardent a temperament for a fair discussion and judicious determination of the whole matter.

I have said, sir, that no Senator would wish to go further than the Senator from South Carolina professes himself willing to go in making appropriations for this branch of the public defence. There can be no disposition wastefully, extravagantly, with no regard to economy, to appropriate the public money for fortifications. We have light upon this subject sufficient for our guidance. We have no occasion, at this day, to engage in unprofitable experiment, whatever may have been the injudicious application of the public money From upon fortifications at certain points heretofore. actual surveys, from the most careful and scientific examinations, we have now shed upon this whole subject the most ample and satisfactory information. The proper location of the public fortresses, for general defence and permanent protection, the kind of fortifications expedient and necessary, are matters settled by approved authority. The documental history with which we have been furnished, clearly shows at what points upon our seaboard, upon our extended maritime frontier, further defences are required.

In connexion with this subject, the surplus revenue is constantly presented to our consideration. That subject is arrayed before us in the most imposing form.

[SENATE.

the same general considerations now require. What
cretion, would now be suggested under the influence of
would then be the dictate of good sense, of sound dis-
the same safe principles. If we were certain that, after
to visit our land, there is no man who loves his country,
the expiration of five years, war, with all its evils, were
to be prepared for the calamity; to strengthen our weak-
there is no patriot, who would not exert all his exergies
ness, to fortify every vulnerable point, to render impreg-
nable our seacoast and our lake frontiers, to put in per-
fect defence our whole country: this would be the
course of every patriot. And, Mr. President, just this
course should be observed now, with reference to this
subject.

Mr. WEBSTER admitted the great importance of
to vote for the original appropriation; but he must vote
Portsmouth harbor, and expressed his entire willingness
against the amendment.

The question was then taken on the amendment, and
YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Cuthbert,
decided as follows:
Ewing of Illinois, Grundy, Hill, Hubbard, King of Ala-
madge, Walker, Wright-17.
bama, Linn, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Tall-

NAYS-Messrs. Black, Calhoun, Crittenden, Davis,
Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, King of Georgia, Leigh,
Mangum, Naudain, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Tomlin
son, Webster, White-16.

Mr. FRESTON then moved to strike out the approno estimates and surveys for fortifications at that harbor. priation for Portsmouth, on the ground that there were

Mr. HUBBARD had addressed the Senate on this satisfied of the course of the Senator from South Carosubject, the other day, at some length. He was so well lina, heretofore, in relation to this subject, that he had expected he would have voted for this provision of the bill. Mr. H. exhibited to the Senate, in detail, the a means of commercial protection, as well as defence great necessity and importance of this fortification, as against invasion.

The Senator from South Carolina says that all the projects embraced in this bill, and all the projects in contemplation connected with the general defence, canMr. CALHOUN said this question involved so impornot by any possibility reduce the revenue to the wants Be it so. I shall rejoice if the But tant a principle, that, without plans or estimates, he was of the Government. not willing to trust it even to the discretion of the Secrepredictions of the Senator shall become history. shall our course be governed by the miserable and sordid policy, that the amount of appropriations for public de-tary of War, and must, therefore, oppose it. fence is to be regulated by the effect to be produced upon the surplus fund? That we are to withhold appropriations, if that fund should thereby be lessened, so as to render it unimportant to make distribution of the remainder among the States? I protest against any such policy. What, sir, have we to do with the state of the Treasury, any further than to ascertain whether its condition will bear the appropriation contemplated? What have we to do with the surplus money, in deciding where, and how, and when a fortification shall be erected for the purpose of permanent and public defence? Sir, whether the passage of this bill, and whether the adoption of all the projects proposed by the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs should have the effect mentioned by the Senator from South Carolina, or whether it should have the effect to exhaust every dollar in the Treasury, save what might be necessary for the support of the Government, would be to me wholly immaterial. I would go on steadily and perseveringly to appropriate and expend for these great objects as fast as I could, in the exercise of a sound discretion, and with a proper regard to economy, until our chain of fortresses shall be perfected upon our maritime frontier. This would be my policy; and I shall endeavor to exercise my best judgment where fortifications are necessary, with a view to defence and security. And there, sir, I would erect them, and of such materials that the lapse of time can have no effect upon their durability, be the cost, the charge, the consequent expenses ever so large.

I know of no better principle to guide us in our action upon this bill, than to suppose that our country, after a lapse of five years, will be inevitably and unalterably involved in a war with the most powerful nation in Christendom. What, then, Mr. President, would be our action upon this bill? What would be the voice of wisdom, of prudence? What would a proper regard to public and private security, to general and individual protection, demand at our hands? Precisely, sir, what

Mr. BENTON referred to a report, in detail, made that was necessary for the information of Senators on by the proper department in 1821, in which every thing this subject, was contained. In regard to these fortifia political character, and the other professional. The cations, there were two questions involved: one was of was worth defence; and the professional question was, political question was, as to whether the point of location as to the plan and estimates, which, when made, no statesman would undertake to question.

Mr. B. adverted to the period, in 1794, when the first act of Congress was passed in relation to forts generally, and the recommendation of General Washington, in which this one was named. The conjectural estimate He spoke of the uncertainty of estimates. A of its cost was $500,000, and 100 guns would be required to arm it. slight error, he said, in the basis of a calculation, led to a large one in its result. It was like two travellers sepato separate, you could scarcely see them dividing; but rating at a diverging point of a road. When they began after they had progressed a considerable distance, they were a great way apart.

Mr. CALHOUN said that in detailed estimates the quantity of materials of each kind was minutely put down, and, when the cost of construction greatly exBut, he asked, upon whom did the responsibility rest in ceeded the estimates, they knew who was to blame. the case of conjectural estimates? They did not do their duty in regard to the trust reposed in them by

[blocks in formation]

acting in this general way, and there was something more at the bottom of this than mere fortifications.

Mr. HUBBARD had been utterly astonished that this fortification had not more particularly claimed the attention of Congress. The first committee who reported on it had placed it in the first class and the seventh, in the order of fortifications, and yet not a dollar was voted for it since the report of 1821, notwithstanding its yearly recommendations from that day to this. Portsmouth, it seemed, had not been the favorite of any administration. At Penobscot, a conjectural estimate had been made by Messrs. Bernard, Totten, and Elliot. But his friend from Maine, anticipating this objection, had procured a survey and estimate, which had increased the amount only one thousand dollars over the conjectural estimate.

Mr. BENTON, after referring to a late estimate, said that, in regard to plans, so many guns were placed on one side of a fort and so many on another; and there was not a Senator there, if he had the plan before him, would presume to say a single gun should be changed in its location.

Mr. CALHOUN asked why the Senate should act before the surveys and estimates were made, when the Secretary of War himself would think it unwise to proceed without them? They were in no danger of a war at this time with any European Power; and why the necessity of acting at this time with such precipitation?

Mr. BENTON asked how it came that the whole stress of the opposition was laid on the want of estimate? There were some ten or eleven cases in which there were estimates, and nobody asked to use them. But here was one case in which there was none, and in it they were called for. It would be perfect ridicule for Senators to criticise on one of these estimates. In cases where the cost exceeded the estimates, it was asked where was the responsibility, and who was to blame? As an evidence of how little reliance was to be placed on estimates, he adverted to a case of a fort in Virginia, where the cost exceeded the detailed estimate as two to one.

Mr. CALHOUN said if Congress should make a call on the engineer in the case of a detailed estimate, he could explain where the fault was, and who was to blame. He stated the reason of the excess of cost in the case of Fort Calhoun, which was owing to its being built on a sand-bar.

Mr. CRITTENDEN inferred that $200,000 would not be sufficient for this work, as in all probability it would cost over $500,000; and how much over that amount, it was not known. ↑

Mr. PRESTON said the arguments of gentlemen went to show that no estimates were to be relied on. Heretofore the cost exceeded the estimates about thirty per cent. But notwithstanding that variation, they still opened up the way to some information, some approximation to the amount necessary to be appropriated. He had gone to the Department, and found estimates on file, which he had examined, and the examination only satisfied him that the Department had done its duty. He would not pretend to say that conjectural estimates were not to be relied on, as well as those detailed ones that were made so long since.

Mr. HUBBARD believed the estimate was made as high as it could be; and he was of the opinion that when the work should be completed, the cost would be found to come within the amount of them.

After some remarks from Mr. PORTER, the question was then taken on the amendment: Yeas 10, nays

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

[MAY 24, 1836.

Mr. DAVIS said it was late in the day; and though the Senate seemed to be exhausted, literally worn out with this subject, as in one form and another it had occupied much of the session, he hoped they would bear with him a short time, while he explained the principles which would guide him in all the votes he should give. The proposition now is to increase the appropriation for a fort at Salem, from seventy-five to one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, and to divide it equally for the two coming years. It seems to be understood that, as this fortification is in Massachusetts, I shall not have the courage to oppose it, even in this unprecedented form. In this gentlemen are mistaken-greatly mistaken; for I ask no indulgence for that State beyond what I am willing to concede to others. I hope no sound rule of policy will be violated, no unnecessary or wasteful expenditure of the public money will be proposed, with an expectation that I shall vote for it, or that the people of that State will approve of it, because the money is to be disbursed in one of its harbors. No, sir; gentlemen need not flatter themselves with success in any such schemes, for they will not triumph by mercenary appeals to a people that have at all times, and under all circumstances, defended themselves and maintained their liberties without fortifications. You may make such appeals to the weak, the timid, such as seek protection behind stone and mortar, and the bristling bayonets of a trained soldiery; but it will be treated with scorn by those who have the manly courage and patriotism to meet fearlessly whatever crisis may come, and to trust in their own strong arms and stout hearts, instead of the embattled hosts of this Government.

Sir, this is called a fortification bill to enlarge the defence of the country by the erection of new works. This purports to be the object, upon the face of it; but, if one may be allowed to judge from all he sees and hears in this chamber, from the repeated and urgent application to the Departments to ascertain the greatest sum that can be expended, from the reiterated prophecies that there will be no surplus found in the Treasury, from an apparent determination to make appropriations two or three years in advance, there is some object beyond fortifying the country, some ulterior purpose, which is not openly avowed, while it is secretly and ardently desired. When extraordinary measures are urged upon us, we have a right to look for extraordinary motives; and what motive is there for lavish appropria tions at this moment?--for appropriations two and three years in advance? It seems to me that one object is to squander the public money, lest there should be a surplus to go to the people; another, to secure the use of it to the deposite banks as loans, without interest, for them to speculate upon, while it is thus gradually wasting. Who does not perceive that, if a million and a half of dollars is appropriated by this bill for 1837, it will be left in these banks, and that they will have the use of it till drawn out, a year to eighteen months, and two years hence? Who cannot understand that, at the lowest estimate, this would amount to 100,000, or 120,000 dollars, as a clear gratuity? These banks now hold about forty millions, which gives them a clear income or gift of more than two and a half millions of dollars annually, under any the most unfavorable view of the matter, to secure the allegiance and fidelity of the stockholders to this Government. The effect of this upon the mercenary is fearful; and I shall give no vote to perpetuate it, either under pretence of defending the country, or in any other way; for we have no right thus to bestow the use of the public money upon individuals, to the exclusion of the people.

I will not detain the Senate with this view of the matter, but will consider the measure as it purports to be

1553

MAY 24, 1836.]

OF DEBATES IN CONGRESS.
Fortification Bill.

a bill to fortify certain places--and examine its merits
We have for a long time heard
in that point of view.
the cry of defence, of alarm, of fortifications, as if some
imminent peril threatened us, demanding such pruden-
tial arrangements. Yet it is a time of peace and tran-
quillity, so far as regards the maritime frontier, and
It is but a short year since no
promises to continue so.
entreaty could prevail on the House of Representatives
to grant a dollar to mount a gun for the defence of Bos-
Where
ton, where the forts are totally dilapidated.
was this glowing patriotism then, while a war with
France was impending? We heard nothing then of the
bleeding country, and the cries of its distressed inhabit-
ants! Nothing of the urgent necessity of surrounding
ourselves with walls! This, again, would seem to indi-
cate some fresh impulse, some new motive for appro-
priations.

While I protest against passing fortification bills to empty the Treasury into the banks, I am decidedly friendly to defending the country against all assaults, within and without, upon our frontiers and upon our

treasure.

That the country must be defended, can admit of no
doubt; but I trust our patriotism is not to be measured
by the height and length and breadth of the walls we
There are other more sen-
advocate for that purpose.
sible methods of testing our love of country, and, above
all, our love of public liberty and free government.

Sir, I am no military man, and make no pretensions
to military science and skill; but we are required as
public men to judge of the propriety and expediency
of the measures submitted to us; and, for one, I can no
more yield my judgment, or submit to leading-strings in
settling the fundamental principles of defence, than in
The defence of the country is not a
any other matter.
new thing, an invention of this session, as some seemed
almost to imagine; but it is an affair towards which the
country has occasionally turned its attention, when its
necessities were quite as urgent as at this time; and
there are some things to be considered besides pouring
out all the treasure in the erection of walls and batte-
ries. What are they? In settling this question with
ordinary sagacity, we must inquire, who is to be our
probable enemy? How he is to approach us? What is
bis situation? What natural obstacles stand in the way?
What use we may make of them? And, above all, what
kind of preparation is suited to our country, and conge-
nial to its free institutions? These are considerations
that should be weighed with the greatest care before
we adopt the ordinary European tactics.

We are then about to fortify our maritime frontier; and who is to assail us in that quarter? There is no Power upon which we need bestow a thought, short of Europe. An enemy from that hemisphere must approach us by sea; and the broad Atlantic, three thousand miles wide, rolls between us, and must be passed before we can be assailed. This great natural barrier Aside from is in itself a better defence than armies. the dangers of a long voyage, it is no easy matter to transport an army that distance, with its necessary maWe have it from good teriel of war and provisions. authority, that it employed four hundred ships to transport the French army of forty thousand men into Egypt. What hope of any permanent or considerable success could forty or fifty thousand men have to invade this country against a population of fifteen millions, with all their resources around them? It would be the extreme of folly and madness to make the attempt; while we are a united people, no nation--not England herself, with her thousand ships--has resources sufficient to venture The disadvanupon such a hazardous undertaking. tages under which an army moves, when three thousand miles from its resources, are incalculably great, VOL. XII.-98

[SENATE.

and are seldom encountered except for some object
nearly certain of accomplishment. Whatever army in-
vades us will assuredly meet with the fate of Burgoyne
and Cornwallis; and if, in that day of small things, with
a population of three millions and no resources, we
could subdue seven thousand, what, with like resolution,
and our present resources, may we not do?

But, sir, we are a commercial people, having prop-
erty to a vast amount scattered everywhere upon the
surface of the high seas; and this is not to be abandoned,
unless we are willing to give up our trade and inter-
course with foreign nations. Our course, then, is plain,
if we adopt a system of defence adapted to our condi-
We must go forth upon this great highway, and
We must protect our
tion.
maintain our right to be there.
tion between us and nations with whom we have amica-
property afloat, keep open the channels of communica-
ble relations, compel our adversary to concentrate his
forces and to move cautiously, and fling from our fron-
tier the calamities of war, by making this ocean the great
theatre of conflict.

Not

All these considerations point to a navy as the first great available means of defence against European agthe country with fortifications, and sit down behind them gression. Could there be greater folly than to incase to wait for the approach of an enemy at his leisure, who, if in undisputed possession of the high seas, would spread his ships out in every direction, and make an easy prey of your commerce? What gallant, high-minded people could consent to abandon their property, their for the ravages of war to be brought to their own froncountrymen, and their rights, to the seas, and sit waiting tier? Not those who have proudly borne the flag in dangers and perils that seemed insurmountable. triumph to the remotest portions of the earth, amid those who claim and are willing fearlessly to assert their right to the great highway of nations. Sir, we cannot of defence; we cannot suffer our commerce to be be so unwise as to abandon these great natural means Our experito inflict like injury upon our adversary. broken up, and our property wasted, without an effort ence demonstrates that small means are capable of executing much; so much, that we have no occasion to But, sir, maritime defence recommends itself to us A navy is more despair, and little more to fear any attempts at invasion. This kind of for greater and more urgent reasons. better with a republican government. congenial to our institutions than an army. It consorts from the people. They therefore experience little of defence is kept upon its own element, and is separated sinuates itself into every community that mingles with that vicious influence and corrupting power which inan array of soldiers. We see little of a navy. It is by itself; and, whatever of the despotic spirit of military rule may belong to it, belongs to it alone. This is doubtless a principal reason why Great Britain has enThe absence of armies has permitted nental Powers. joyed a greater share of public liberty than the contination, and the increased knowledge and civilization of liberal principles to expand with the growth of the an improving country. Not only is this force kept by are neither made ministers, the governors of provinces, itself, but no admiral attains to civil distinction. They nor placed in any high stations. A sailor is seldom heard of, except in defending the honor and redressing the wrongs of his country.

But, further: look at our own country; at achievements which filled every bosom with surprise and joy; which fame as illustrious and imperishable as will be the history In all times, and under all cirredeemed the honor of the nation, and acquired for it a of our naval victories. cumstances, our naval history is almost without blemish. The valor, the intrepidity, and the skill of our country

SENATE.]

Fortification Bill.

men come near to being all we could desire; and their magnanimity, patriotism, and disinterestedness have never, I am confident, been surpassed. Where is the sailor who has dishonored the deck upon which he has trod, or has tarnished the flag that waved over his head? To no other class of men can the honor and interests of the country be more safely confided, for they pour their blood out for us as freely as water. And to their honor be it said and let a grateful country acknowledge it-they ask nothing in return but the monthly wages we by law promise to them. They demand no places of honor, of trust, or emolument. They claim no stations as a reward for public service. They touch not a foot of your public lands; and though your tables here (I speak it without reproach, for no one feels more grateful for valuable military services) have for years groaned under the weight of petitions for pensions, when have you ever heard among them the name of a sailor? Sir, as a singular illustration of this disinterested, lofty patriotism, petitions have for more than ten years been pending on your files for remuneration for that gallant achievement, the destruction of the frigate Philadelphia, in the harbor of Tripoli; and I believe not one of that devoted band has ever put his name to any of these or any other papers, asking for the bounty of this Government, though the sum proposed to be given has never been less than a hundred thousand dollars. It is enough for the sailor to sustain the honor of the country, and to preserve its liberties. All he asks in return is the proud distinction of having borne her flag in triumph to the remotest corners of the earth, without soiling a fold of it.

Sir, we have little to fear from such a class of men; and yet even for the navy I want no extravagant, lavish appropriations of money; no unnatural growth; but a firm, steady advance in strength, which will enable us to compel all adversaries to respect our rights, because we are able to defend them.

And now, sir, let me ask the attention of the Senate to the militia, which ought and was designed to be our great reliance for land defence and protection at all times, except in cases of actual invasion. Yes, to the militia. Perhaps the word itself may strike some ears with surprise; for, in this long debate, this endless discussion about the defences of the country, the militia have neither been mentioned nor thought of. I beg permission to recall attention to that class of men-to the armed citizens-who seem to be cast by as unworthy of notice among the splendid preparations for war. Let us not forget that those who achieved our independence thought the citizen soldier the most suitable defender and guardian of their rights, the only force in harmony with our institutions-a force (however fashionable it may be to laugh and jest at) which has fulfilled the highest hopes of the country, by proving its courage and skill equal to every great crisis which has occurred from the battle of Bunker's Hill and that of Saratoga to this day. The name of a million and a half of armed men is worth more than a wall of brass. It is a living fortification that no enemy will disregard. Who, without an overwhelming force, will venture upon an armed, organized population? It is this organization which, at all times, has saved the country from inroads, from its earliest settlement. And has the day come when, in the pride of power, in our zeal to be defended, we are about to abandon the militia, and substitute a regular army? Sir, we have always been taught that military power in a free Government is dangerous; that it does not harmonize with republican institutions; that it is arbitrary and violent in its character; that its lessons are obedience and submission, and all its elements the opposite of popular liberty. We have been instructed, also, that the militia-in other words, armed citizens-can be trusted, because they are the protectors of their own fire

[MAY 24, 1836.

sides; because they are the people themselves, doing service in time of peace, as a patriotic and not as a mercenary act; and because their interests are identified with the preservation of peace, the perpetuity of popular rights, and the dominion of law. They mostly hold the elective franchise, and thus constitute part and parcel of the elements of the Government itself! Thus bound to us by every tie of affection and interest, and exempt from all dependence on the Government, they consti. tute a force on which we may safely rely; a force that can have no motive to follow an ambitious leader, or to conquer the liberties of the country. They are, in truth, the people themselves, who become soldiers for no other purpose than to preserve the country. This force constitutes a part of our organization; a part of our re publican system. It is the strong arm on which the framers of the constitution relied; and are we about to pass it by, as of no account in the defence of the country? Sir, we have fallen upon new, if not unpropitious times. Efforts have been made here, year after year, to give some encouragement to the militia. We have been entreated by the States to turn our attention to the matter, and to place this force upon a more respectable and a more honorable footing; but, as far as my memory serves me, we have never even condescended to take the matter into consideration, while scarce a day passes without an exhortation to increase the army, or to enlarge the fortifications. Sir, I have a confiding reliance on a gallant, patriotic people, that they will never suffer their country to be dishonored; and when they cease to justify that trust, they will cease to have a Government in which they will participate. It is plain to me that our fathers relied upon a navy and the militia for the protection and defence of the country, except in great and urgent emergencies; and I feel an earnest desire that their great principles in this matter, so intimately connected as they are with our future hopes, may not be abandoned. The militia, if properly regarded, is daily becoming more and more effective, by the great facilities for intercommunication which are now afforded by steam. Forces to a great amount may now be suddenly collected at important points along the seacoast, without the fatigue of long and dilatory marches, which must add greatly to our military strength and se curity. Indeed, the expediency and wisdom of relying upon this force was never, at any moment, more apparent than now.

While I contend for these, as leading matters of a defence founded upon enlightened views of our position and our republican Government, I by no means deny the propriety of fortifying to some extent. The chief cities and places of commercial business ought to have some protection; but I object to such fortifications as that at Old Point Comfort, containing over sixty acres of land, and costing about two millions of dollars. This is a system of defence belonging to standing armies and burdensome taxation. Our republic should shun both. I would construct, at important points, forts of suitable dimensions and strength to guard against surprise or sudden assaults by an enemy. For the rest, I would rely on the emergency. Sir, if the whole coast is to be fortified, and the fortifications are to be of this gigantic character, is not this preparation to be the apology for a standing army, and for an annual expenditure that will oppress and bow down the people under burdens grievous to be borne? If the people would see what comes of splendid Governments, let them look into Europe, and see the laborer toiling through a life of poverty and wretchedness to sustain them. Let them see the inexorable decree which binds him to the earth, and fleeces him with tithes and taxes.

Sir, when the people, or the people's representatives, are captivated with military glory; when the tap of the

1557

MAY 24, 1836.]

Fortification Bill.

drum is heard daily in the street; when a military spirit has seized us; when our thoughts run upon the achievements of arms, the acquisition of territory, the enlargement of our limits; when we become belligerant in our feelings, quarrelsome and overbearing towards our neighbors; when we are for drawing the sword and unfurling the banner to settle every controversy; when, in a word, we begin to play the bully, and to rely on our strength, instead of dealing justly and temperately, the signs of the times must be viewed as ominous of evil, for our institutions are peaceable in their character, and always suffer when touched by the jarring elements of war. Let that state of sentiment be aided by a concentration of public affection in military leaders and a standing army, and we may read our fate in that of Athens under Pericles, republican Britain under Cromwell, and republican France under Napoleon. The transition is easy; and the history of the world shows that, under these symptoms, it is certain, from a free Government to a military despotism. Names usually remain unchanged, but the Let me, then, power is shifted from the many to one. entreat the Senate to be no way instrumental in creating a necessity for a standing army, which is the bane of a free Government. A standing army enjoys no liberty, and knows not how to appreciate it; it is acquainted with nothing but obedience and dependence; it feeds from the public crib, and is too often faithful to the master that deals out its daily bread, or promises it an opportunity to plunder others. All example teaches us, by the melancholy fate of others, to shun this certain destruction. I would listen with strong distrust to all propositions to increase the army, or to erect works which will make such an increase necessary; and so will Do gentlemen suppose the people of Massachusetts. that a people who have been nursed in the cradle of liberty-a people whose soil was once stained with the tread, and whose churches were desecrated by the sports of armies brought here to defend the royal Government-will be seduced from their principles by a proffer to spend in their harbors one or two hundred thousand dollars? Sir, you must come with heavier bribes, if you would tempt the mercenary spirit of that people, or seduce them from their steady, firm, and unchangeable love of public liberty. You must first blot from their memories the history of the Revolution, before you will succeed in teaching them that standing armies are in harThis scheme, therefore, of mony with our institutions. placing a fort in each State, will not recommend to us double and triple appropriations, or a lavish waste of public money. The object and the effect are apparent. No one doubts, Mr. President, that if you insist on finding out how much money can be spent, the military bureaus will send you projects that would absorb the revenues of the earth. Look, sir, at the monstrous sums which this report proposes to disburse for the army and the navy. Sixty-two millions for the former, and seventeen for the latter; making about eighty millions. Sir, such propositions are not to be listened to for a moment. What follows? According to the annunciation just made by the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, these estimates are not large enough by one third or more. We should then have forts enough to employ one hundred thousand men in time of war; and how many in time of peace, I know not; but an army at least to absorb like a sponge the earnings of the laborer.

[SENATE.

Let us proceed upon the old and safe principles: deal
justly, and cease to hunt for injuries and to give provo-
cation, and we shall have few wrongs to redress. I have
no objection to beginning new works where they are
necessary, as I believe most of those in this bill are; but
I have said that great forts are not necessary;
I cannot vote for these long and extravagant appropria-
tions.
and in proof of this, and that nothing urgent presses
upon us, I do not recollect that any town, however
poorly fortified, was ever entered by an enemy's ship,
from the settlement of the country to this time, except
in the war of the Revolution, when the British had in
the outset possession of most of the important posts.
These two hundred years of experience,
And yet we were, in colonial times, involved in long and
bitter wars.
when we were weak, ought to be worth something.
The history of them furnishes a striking contrast to the
present day--a contrast humbling to our pride. The
spirit of chivalry that sustained a feeble community has
For one, sir, I have no distrust of the manly courage
vanished, and, like tortoises, we are crawling into shells.
and patriotism of the people; they will, come what may,
save the country from dishonor, unless you teach them
to rely for protection upon standing armies.

I have another objection to the present plan of opera-
tions. The apology for anticipating the demands for
future years is to enable the engineers to make long
contracts. This is the most unpropitious of all times
to make long contracts; every thing is run up to the
highest price, and nothing could be more unwise than
to make long contracts at the present value of labor
and materials. To force works now, when there is no
pressing emergency, would not only be a great waste of
public money, but, if extensive new works are commenc-
ed, then the United States becomes a bidder for labor
and materials against other public works and improve-
ments, as well as against individual operations; and, sir,
it requires no sagacity to predict that the weaker party
must yield. It has been said that no such effect can be
in New York to rebuild the burnt district, and no such
produced, because millions upon millions are expending
result has followed. Sir, I have before me evidence
proving that this course has pressed so heavily on other
portions of the country as actually to suspend works
under contract.

I have, sir, as all know who have observed my public course, been the unwavering advocate of the laboring class of the public. My most sincere desire, at all times, has been, that they should realize a just and liberal compensation for their work; for no other state of things can give a vigorous prosperity to the country. These opinions remain unaltered. I am still under the firm belief that labor must be well paid, to make a happy and wellregulated community. But how is labor best encouraged? How is it that employers in this country can afford to pay higher wages than are paid for like services in Europe? One great reason is this: public improvements here have been pushed forward to an extent unexampled. The canal, for example, from Lake Erie to of miles in extent, and brings into action the resources Albany, opens a line of water communication thousands of a vast country which before were dormant. A barrel of flour may probably be delivered from the Lakes at New York at less expense of transportation than a like transit of fifty miles over land in Germany. Here, then, labor acts with a power of production unknown in Sir, let us abandon this lavish spirit, and return to the more of the fruits of its action in all ways; and hence it great cardinal virtues--economy in the expenditure of Europe. It can make more grain; send into the market the public money and reform of abuses. I will not, for one, be tempted into a violation of these great princi- is justly entitled to more compensation. Such is the An effect of all internal improvements, all facilities of transples, under the delusive cry of defence, defence! market. Every line of railroad opens new resources, honest, upright, and just course of policy will seldom portation, which bring products at less expense into the call for any defence. It is the noisy tone of bravado that demands defence, and generally makes it necessary. gives employment to new capital, and to labor invigora

« AnteriorContinuar »