SENATE.]

quisition for taxes. He concluded by asking for the yeas and nays; which were ordered.

After some further explanation by Messrs. WRIGHT and CLAY,

Mr. WEBSTER said that it was not ten days since he first heard that it was in contemplation to change this part of the compact. He considered it important, and hoped no change would be made without some more mature deliberation. If any change was to be made, it ought to be done by a general law, applicable to all the States, and he hoped the change would not be pressed in this instance.

After a few words of explanation from Mr. EWING, of Ohio,

The question was taken upon the amendment moved by Mr. CLAY, and decided as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Goldsborough, Grundy, Kent, Knight, Leigh, McKean, Naudain, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Southard, Swift, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster-20.

NAIS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, Mangum, Moore, Morris, Nicholas, Niles, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Shepley, Tallmadge, Walker, White, Wright-24. So the amendment was negatived.

The bill was then passed, in the modified form proposed by Mr. WRIGHT.

INDIAN APPROPRIATIONS.

On motion of Mr. WHITE,

The Senate took up the bill making appropriations for the Indian department, and amendments; the question being on concurring with the House in the additional appropriations for the removal of the Creek Indians.

Mr. WHITE moved to amend the amendment, by providing that no private contracts shall be made under this appropriation, without giving previous public notice; which being agreed to, the amendment of the House as amended, was concurred in.

PRE-EMPTION CLAIMS.

The bill to extend the time for receiving the proof of certain pre-emption claims under the act of the 19th of June, 1834, came up on its third reading.

Mr. EWING, of Ohio, opposed the bill, on the ground that a great mass of fraud and perjury would be practised under it, and that the United States would be deprived of a vast quantity of its best lands, to enrich those who had no claim whatever on them. The gentleman from Mississippi who introduced this bill [Mr. WALKER] Could not possibly be aware of the extent of the frauds that would be perpetrated under it. Mr. E. instanced the vast tracts of valuable lands acquired from the Indians in Wisconsin, and above the rafts of the Red river, worth four dollars per acre, that would be entirely swept away by persons who had gone on them, to wait for some such law of this kind. The bill, he said, held out a bribe to falsehood, fraud, and perjury. If it was a small matter, as the Senator from Mississippi supposed, he would not so earnestly oppose it-he would not object to giving each rascal who crossed the Mississippi his $1,000 in order to get rid of him; but the man who was disposed to defraud the Government under this bill, must be a worthless rascal indeed, if he could not make bis tens of thousands and hundred of thousands. They had evidence enough of the frauds that had been perpetrated under these pre-emption laws. Some of these claimants would have no difficulty in swearing to at least a dozen cases.

Mr. WALKER rose to defend the character of the settlers on the western lands. He denied that they were

[JUNE 9, 1836.

He

a set of purjured rascals. They were as high-minded and as honorable a set of men as any on the face of the earth, and as little deserved the imputations that had been cast on them as their libellers on that floor. did not know where gentlemen got their habit of speaking of these men, who, for honest integrity, virtue, and patriotism, would compare with any people on the face of the earth, unless it was from the English and Scotch reviewers. Go back (said Mr. W.) to the period of the last war, and say who it was that filled up the ranks of our army. Who was it that defended New Orleans and the valley of the Mississippi from the pollution of the footsteps of a foreign foe, but these purjured rascals that, gentlemen so vehemently denounced on that floor? In reply to the objections of Mr. EWING, Mr. W. said that it was impossible that purjuries could be committed under this bill; because, as the evidence must be taken within separate land districts, and before the Register and Receiver, each settler would be known, and no one of them could swear to more than one case, or personate more than one claim. Mr. W. also showed that the tracts of country between the Des Moines and Lake Michigan, and above the raft of Red river, referred to by the Senator from Ohio, could not be affected by this bill, as all these lands have been acquired by Indian treaties since 1834, and the bill excludes any claimant who bas settled on lands to which the Indian title had not been extinguished before that time. [Mr. W. read the dates of the treaties by which these lands were acquired.] Mr. W. urged a variety of arguments in support of the bill, contending that it would by no means extend as far as was appre hended by the Senator from Ohio; that these settlers, for whose benefit the bill was intended, had a vested right in the lands they had settled, relying on the faith of the Government, and that it would be impolitic as well as unjust to deprive them of the land defended by their blood and enriched by their industry, for the paltry consideration of the additional two cents per acre they would get at the public sales from the land speculators.

Mr. MORRIS observed that, when this bill was before the Senate the other day, he was not altogether satisfied with its provisions, and therefore did not vote for its engrossment. This bill contemplated extending the time for making proof of pre-emption claims under the law of 1832, extended by the law of 1834. Now, he wished to know whether the Secretary of the Treasury had decided that the claimant, under the law of 1832, was entitled, whether the land he settled had been surveyed or not?

Mr. WALKER replied in the affirmative.

Mr. MORRIS thought that the Secretary had decided wrong, and that the law of 1832 never contemplated applying to unsurveyed lands. This law spoke of quarter sections; and how could the settler prove a quarter section unless the land had been surveyed? Mr. M. said he was for extending every encouragement to settlers on the public lands, by a reduction of prices, as far as any gentleman would, go; but he was not in favor of pre-emptions, as he thought the system had not worked well. If claimants under the pre-emption laws had been prevented, by any fault of the Government, from completing their proof, he would grant relief in individual cases, as they were substantiated; but he was opposed to any general law, which must necessarily lead to great difficulties and embarrassments.

Mr. EWING, of Ohio, denied that he had made any general accusation against the settlers on the public lands. What he said was, that numerous frauds and purjuries had been committed with regard to the public lands, of which their tables groaned with the fullest evidence, and that these persons whom he begged leave

still to designate as rascals, would avail themselves of the provisions of this bill, to perpetrate more frauds and perjuries. The Senator from Mississippi might say, if he chose, that there was not a rascal in the West, but he knew that innumerable frauds and perjuries had been committed there, and their files showed abundant evidence of it. He cast no general imputation on the settlers of the West; he considered himself one of them, and it was natural for him to speak of them, as he did, in the most favorable terms.

Mr. E. recapitulated his objections to the bill, and enlarged on the evils that would grow out of it. He denied that the claimants under the laws of 1832 and 1834 had any vested rights in the lands-his colleague having well said that the act of 1832 never contemplated applying to unsurveyed lands. He agreed that the checks and guards in this bill would, to some measure, prevent the reception of false evidence, but not to the extent desired. He had no sort of doubt but that an individual might so disguise himself as to personate ten or fifteen different claimants. This had been done before, and would be done again. Experience had sufficiently shown them what frauds could be perpetrated under these pre-emption laws. In one case an individual settled on a tract of land in the neighborhood of a fort, and the courts had decided that he was entitled to his pre-emption, because it was public land, though the tract was worth five hundred thousand dollars. Suspicions were entertained that the Register and Receiver were interested with him; but this was of no avail, as it could not be proved. Mr. E. said it was not out of want of regard to the actual and honest settlers that had gone upon the public lands that he opposed the bill, but it was to guard against fraud, perjury, and speculation, that he had set his face against it.

Mr. WALKER said that if the term "public lands" comprehended unsurveyed lands, these settlers undoubtedly had vested rights in the lands they claimed. This question was first raised in 1833, and was referred by the Commissioner of the General Land Office to the Secretary of the Treasury, who solemnly decided that pre-emptioners on the unsurveyed lands were entitled to their pre-emptions, because they were as much public lands as those that had been surveyed. To be sure, they were required to make their proof in two years; but, by omitting to appoint a surveyor, they were deprived of the chance of doing so.

Mr. CLAY said if there was any one thing on which he supposed the mind of Congress was made up when he first came here this winter, it was to put an end to this nefarious system of pre-emptions. He had been informed, by the most undoubted authority, that printed affidavits were regularly sold in the market at New Orleans, containing all the requisites to establish a good pre-emption claim. On one occasion the Governor of Louisiana was called on to certify an affidavit purporting to have been signed by a justice of the peace who he knew was one hundred and fifty miles off; and on another he was called on, with the signature of a justice he had suspended from office six months before. While the system was liable to such glaring abuses, he hoped gentlemen would not agree to extend it.

Mr. KING, of Georgia, contended that it never could have been the intention of Congress to extend the privi lege of pre-emptions beyond the surveys, and beyond the civil organization of the country; and it was apparent on the face of the act that it was only intended to apply to surveyed lands. This act ought to be construed like all other acts, by considering the whole of it, in order to arrive at its true meaning.

[Mr. K. here read the act.]

How could this act designate a quarter section as the portion for each settler, unless it was intended to apply

[SENATE.

to surveyed lands? If there was to be a general scramble for the public lands, let the poor honest man every where have a chance, as well as these pre-emptioners. Let us, said he, understand the grounds on which we legislate, and not hold out advantages, as was done by this bill, to lawless depredators, and who drive out every honest man from competition with them. He considered the system under which they had acted ever since the pre-emption laws commenced, as disgraceful to the Government, and as a reward for the violation of the laws. He had not read the review referred to by the Senator from Mississippi; but, on hearing the extract read by the gentleman, he could not but be struck with the remarkable intelligence of the people on the other side of the water, with regard to their opinions of those persons he termed squatters. The gentleman was more comprehensive than he was in his application of the term "squatters," for he applied it to the first settlers at Jamestown, to the pilgrims, and even to Columbus; and he said that they were squatters who saved New Orleans, and would have conquered at Bladensburg, had they been there. Now, he was by no means so comprehensive in his application of the term. He applied it to those persons who had gone beyond the limits of the settlements, and were wholly reckless of the laws, either of God or man. They were the non-consumers of the country, performed no duties, either civil or military, and led lives without labor. They went beyond the civil organization of the country, for the purpose of driving the Indians off their lands, and eventually securing them by pre-emption, and paid a habitual disregard to all laws, human and divine, unless, indeed, it was preemption laws; and these they only cared for because they enabled them to sell the lands they had so lawlessly acquired. They took possession of the lands, and would not permit any man who went there to locate buy them, unless they were well paid for the permission.

From the act of 1832 it appeared evident that Congress could never have intended it to apply to lands beyond the survey. There could have been no possible motive for encouraging men who had gone so far beyond the settlements as to leave the surveys behind them.

After some remarks from Mr. BLACK, in favor of the bill, the question was taken on its final passage, and it was rejected by the following vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Buchanan, Ewing of Illinois, Grundy, Hendricks, King of Alabama, Linn, Moore, Nicholas, Porter, Rives, Robinson, Tallmadge, Walker, White, Wright-17.

NAYS--Messrs. Brown, Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Goldsborough, Kent, King of Georgia, Knight, Leigh, McKean, Mangum, Morris, Naudain, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Southard, Swift, Tomlinson, Wall, Webster-23.

THE PUBLIC DEPOSITES.

The Senate proceeded to consider the bill to regulate the deposites of the public money.

The question being on the amendment proposed by the committee

Mr. WRIGHT (the chairman of the committee) said that his only object now was to call the attention of the Senate to that part of the bill which particularly related to the regulation of the public deposites in the deposite banks. The other part of the bill, which related to the disposition of the surplus, he should not now refer to. He wished to call the attention of Senators particularly to those parts of the bill on which some unavoidable difficulties existed, in order that they might suggest such amendments as they deemed necessary. In the third section of the bill the deposites were restricted to banks incorporated by the States, by Congress for the District

of Columbia, and by the legislative councils of the Territories. Now, there was one State in this Union (the State of Missouri) which had no bank, and the deposites of this State were made in an agency of one of the Ohio banks at St. Louis. His construction of the bill was, that it would prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from continuing this agency; and, if he construed it in the same way, he must select, for the deposites of Missouri, some other bank nearest to that State, which must be some bank in Indiana. But Indiana would probably have as much money deposited in her banks as the bill would allow them to have. Again: in the State of Illinois there was a bank incorporated by the State laws; but it was a mooted question whether this bank was incorporated in accordance with the provisions of her constitution. In Indiana the banks were prohibited by their charters from discounting on their deposites; and therefore, being unable to use the public money committed to them, they would not consent to pay interest, in accordance with one of the provisions of the bill. With respect to the specie provisions in the bill, he thought it ought to have been more explicit on that head; but, on examining the statements of the deposite banks, he found that those of five of the States, say Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama, would by this bill be compelled to double their amount of specie, or decline the public deposites. This provision would not affect the northern and northwestern banks, nor the banks of South Carolina, because they had more specie than was required. The bill originally provided that the power of discontinuing a deposite bank should be discretionary with the Secretary of the Treasury; but the committee had thought proper to enumerate the cases under which deposite banks might be discontinued; but in doing so, they had left the matter still doubtful, and he wished this provision to be made more explicit.

In the first section of the bill it was provided that there should not be deposited in any one bank an amount to exceed three fourths of its capital. This provision, he thought, would occasion embarrassment to the receivers of the public moneys; because they might want to deposite the public funds they had collected at a time when the bank had already received its full amount, and therefore be compelled to retain the moncy, or to deposite in some other bank. He thought, therefore, that the business of equalizing the deposites should be left entirely to the Secretary; and that it would be better to provide, instead of the present provision, that not more than three fourths beyond their capital should remain in each bank.

Mr. WRIGHT then proposed an amendment, which was agreed to, providing that the deposite banks shall render to the Government all the duties that were required of the Bank of the United States and its offices.

Mr. PORTER supposed that the moneys collected in Missouri might be managed by an agency of one of the New Orleans banks, or that Congress might create an agency at St. Louis.

Mr. ROBINSON stated that there were some doubts at the Treasury in relation to the State Bank of Illinois, whether it was constitutionally chartered; but he had no doubt but that the difficulty would be removed at the next session of the Legislature.

Mr. HENDRICKS thought that the provisions of the bill, with respect to the payment of interest, would ef fectually prevent the banks of Indiana from receiving the public deposites; because, being prohibited by their charters from discounting on them, they could make no profits out of which to pay interest.

Mr. WEBSTER said that as it was undoubtedly of some importance to a State to have these deposites, Indiana might consider it worth while to enlarge the pow

[JUNE 9, 1836.

ers of her banks. If this could not be done, an amendment might be made preventing this provision of the bill from applying to banks which were prohibited from discounting on their deposites.

Mr. HENDRICKS, in reference to Indiana enlarging the power of the banks in the particular referred to, said that the difficulty was felt last year, and an attempt was made in the Legislature for that purpose, but that it had failed. He would prefer, he said, an amendment as suggested by the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. BENTON observed that the Senator from New York had very properly confined his explanations to one part of the bill, without turning his attention to another subject which ought not to be in it, and which belonged to the distribution land bill. But, while he applauded the Senator for bringing to the attention of the Senate but one subject at a time, he could not agree with him as to the one he had selected. He hoped the Senator would drop the first half of the bill, and take up that part which proposed to divide the public money among the States. It would be an unnecessary labor for them to go on with their arrangements for fifty or sixty deposite banks, when, by a subsequent provision in the bill, they would have no money to deposite with them, or so small an amount that no banks of any character would think it worth while to enter into arrangements for it. He, for one, would neither compromise nor temporize with this distribution principle; the country would take care of itself; and it would be found that the vaticinations with respect to ruin from having too much mo. ney, would turn out just as did those of the panic session, about having too little. As to Missouri, she was expunged from this bill. A State which received and distributed more money than any of the western States-a State which, from her position, and her safe and rapid communication to every quarter, was the first in importance in the West to the fiscal concerns of the Government, and from whence the paymasters, quartermasters, Surveyors, and Indian agents, all took their departure with their supplies of every description--was to be expunged from the bill. He did not perceive that his friend from New York had taken up the idea, suggested by the Senator from Louisiana, that the Government was to establish a bank at St. Louis, under the name of an agency, to issue five dollar notes, and to have a capital consisting of "funds and property equivalent to specie," like the District banks. His friend from New York would make no such proposition; but those who had charge of this bill had better make it, to establish a bank at St. Louis, or an agency of the Patriotic Bank of this city.

The deposite system had gone on well for two years, though it had been prophesied over and over that it would not work. Those who had made these prophecies had now the control of this bill, and they had brought it in to make their prophecies come true; for this bill was as much intended to break the deposite banks as if it was expressed so on the face of it. was inclined to think that if Congress would let the system remain as it was, things would go on well; but if Congress undertook to expunge the system, the greatest difficulties would ensue.

lle

Mr. WALKER referred to the provisions in the constitution of Mississippi which would prevent her from receiving any portion of the surplus to be distributed under the 13th section of the bill, and he hoped that that section would not be permitted to remain in the bill. He opposed, with great force and energy, the distribution principle in the bill; considering it, to all intents and purposes, a free gift; for, from reasons he stated, it never could be returned by the States. He also opp sed the inequality of the distribution, which is proposed to be made according to the census of 1830, while Mississippi,

JUNE 10, 1836.]

having more han doubled her population since that time, would not get more than one half of what her present population entitled her to Mr. W. felt anxious that the vote should be first taken on the distribution part of the bill, as he considered it wholly unconnected with the principal object in view. If it should pass, he hoped that he might be permitted, as a Senator from Mississippi, to enter on the journal a calm, dispassionate, and, at the same time, solemn protest against it.

Mr. WEBSTER replied to the objections of Mr. WALKER. He thought that the postponement of the benefits of this bill to the State of Mississippi, till she provided by law for their reception, was not to be weighed against the general benefits of the whole.

Mr. BLACK, after taking a view at considerable length of the surplus that would be in the Treasury, and the necessity for providing some mode of disposing of it, and referring also to the distribution land bill, which he highly commended, gave it as his opinion that the great benefits to be derived from this bill were such that, though a representative of Mississippi, he must give it his support. He did not, however, apprehend the difficulties stated by his colleague, for he believed that the Legislature of his State would make such provisions as eventually to entitle her to the benefits of this bill, and in the mean time she would not be injured by the other States receiving their quotas, while hers remained waiting for her disposal.

Mr. CALHOUN denied that this was intended as a distribution bill-it was in good faith a deposite bill, and nothing more. Gentlemen on all sides, he said, admitted that there would be a very large surplus at the end of the year, and that it would continue to increase for two or three years to come. Now, he put it to gentlemen, could they consider this vast sum safe as it was? Was there not a necessity for depositing it somewhere? And where could that be so safely done as in the treasuries of the States? If the Government was only economically administered, the money would probably never be called for; but if there should be war, or if the revenue of 1842 should fall short, the States would pay it without the slightest difficulty, rather than have a direct tax, as the events of the last war proved. Mr. C. replied to the objections of Mr. WALKER, as to the inequality of the distribution, by saying that it was proposed in the only way that it could be made; that is, on the principle on which the direct taxes would have to be levied, so that if Mississippi lost now, she would have a corresponding gain when a direct tax came. After some further remarks from Mr. C., but before the question was taken,

The Senate adjourned.

FRIDAY, JUNE 10.

CONSTITUTIONAL CURRENCY.

Mr. BENTON, in pursuance of notice given, asked and obtained leave, and introduced the following bill; which was read, and ordered to a second reading: A BILL to re-establish the currency of the constitution for the Federal Government.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That bank notes and paper currency of every description shall cease to be received or offered in payment on account of the United States, or of the Post Office, or in fees in the courts of the United States, as follows: Of less denomination than twenty dollars, none after the 3d day of March, 1837; of less denomination than fifty dollars, none after the 3d day of March, 1838; of less denomination than one hundred dollars, none after the 3d day of March, 1839; of less denomination VOL. XII.-110

[SENATE.

than five hundred dollars, none after the 3d day of March, 1840; of less denomination than one thousand dollars, none after the 3d day of March, 1841; and none of any denomination from and after the 3d day of March, 1842.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That any person holding an appointment under the laws of the United States, and any bank employed to keep public moneys, which person or bank shall neglect, evade, or attempt to elude the provisions of this act, shall be guilty of an offence against the laws; and the person so offending shall be liable to be dismissed from the service, and the bank so offending shall, on satisfactory information, be discontinued as a depository of the public moneys.

INCREASE OF THE ARMY.

The Senate, on motion of Mr. BENTON, proceeded to consider the bill to increase the present military establishment of the United States.

Mr. BENTON said that this was a measure of western origin, and eminently called for by the present and prospective condition of the West. Early in the session his colleague [Mr. LINN] and a Senator from Indiana [Mr. TIPTON] had submitted resolutions calling upon the Secretary of War to report the number of Indians upon the western frontier, and to give his opinion upon the propriety of increasing the strength of the army, with a view to the security of that frontier. The Secretary had answered promptly and satisfactorily. His report, dated on the 8th of March, and No. 228 of the Senate documents, showed that the number of Indians on the western and northwestern border, including those yet to be removed by the Government, amounted to 253,000 souls; all of whom are either in the immediate neighborhood, or within striking distance, of the frontiers of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, the Des Moines settlements, and the Wisconsin and Michigan Territories. At the usual proportion of warriors in an Indian population, that of one to five, this aggregate of 253,000 souls would give 50,000 warriors; being the largest Indian force ever yet arrayed on the frontier settlements of the Union. To cover the people of the West and Northwest from the incessant danger of such a vast array of savages, they had their proportion of a small army of six thousand men, which in point of effective force, and after making allowances for the casualties of service, could not be expected to present, at any one time, more than 4,500 for action. This small force, then, was divided out between the lake, the maritime, the gulf, and the western frontiers; a circuit which had been officially computed at about 12,000 miles, following its meanders, and about 9,000,* following its general courses; so that our army, if stretched round the frontier, would afford about one man to every two miles. The fortifications upon the maritime and gulf coast required a good part of this force; of that allotted to the West, a part had to be kept, not on the frontier, but at a convenient position for looking out for danger, and proceeding to meet it. It was upon this principle that a regiment was usually in the neighborhood of St. Louis; not that troops were wanted there, but that there not being a sufficient number in service to guard all the exposed points, a cɔrps was therefore placed at a half-way point between the head and mouth of the Mississippi, and near the confluence of the Missouri, where the means of transportation were at hand, to be ready from that point to go north, south, or west, as events might require. Thus, these troops within a few years past had ascended the Mis

SENATE.]

On

"Extensive and permanent fortifications have been constructed upon the seaboard; and it seems to be generally conceded, that our most important points of communication with the ocean should be gradually rendered secure by similar works against the advance of an enemy. These forts, as they are finished, should be occupied by troops, not only to prevent such insults and injuries as large commercial places are exposed to, whose approaches are not sufficiently guarded, but also to keep the works in a proper state of preservation. These duties, it is believed, will require the artillery force proposed to be maintained. Experience has shown that we are perpetually liable to occurrences which demand the concentration and movement of the troops. Whenever these happen, the positions occupied must remain defenceless, unless a greater force is raised. This is now the state of things along almost all our Atlantic border. "With respect to the inland frontier, circumstances of a still more imperative character require an augmen. tation of the army. Events have shown that our force in that quarter is not sufficient to keep the Indians in check. Disturbances are continually occurring, at comparatively short intervals, some of which terminate merely by alarming and agitating the country, while others lead to hostilities more or less extensive. these occasions, the regular troops are collected from great distances, and a militia force is usually called out. Heavy expenditures are the necessary consequence, besides the loss of property and derangement of business in the section of country where these troubles exist. Instead of having a force at all times imbodied sufficient to overawe the Indians, or if they commence hostilities, immediately to subdue them, much time is lost in the necessary arrangements, while the spirit of disaffection is spreading, and the hostile force becomes thus greatly increased. Within the last nine years we have had four difficulties of this nature-one with the Winnebagoes, two with the Sacs and Foxes, and one with the Florida Indians; which, altogether, have occasioned great loss of property, great derangement of business, a heavy expenditure of money, and much inconvenience in those portions of the country affected by these troubles, and which furnished the militia, whose services were required to aid the regular troops in their operations. An augmentation of the army to a reasonable extent, if it did not prevent these occurrences altogether, would certainly render them less frequent, as well as less injurious and extensive. And this policy is not less humane than useful. It is far better, by the display of force, to render its actual employment unnecessary, than it is to be compelled to resort to it, with all the usual accompaniments of an Indian campaign.”

A force of ten thousand men is deemed to be necessary by the Secretary of War; but, to obtain that force for service, he shows the necessity of authorizing a larger number; as the casualties of service, with rapid discharges from three years' enlistments, will make a dif ference of about one third between the authorized and the actual effective force. The commander-in-chief of

[JUNE 10, 1836.

the army, General Macomb, concurs in this opinion, and shows it to be necessary to authorize an establishment of twelve thousand men, in order to have a force of ten thousand. He thus expresses himself on this point:

"Although, according to the instructions of the Secretary of War, the organization here proposed is limited to ten thousand men, and which may be considered as a minimum force for the purposes for which the army is intended, it is respectfully recommended that, in order to have the amount of force always effective, eighteen men be added to each company of infantry and artillery, which would increase the nominal force to something below twelve thousand men; but, owing to the fact of the men being enlisted for only three years, the great distance the recruits have generally to march, and the time consumed in joining the regiments on the frontiers, and the necessity of keeping within the autho rized numbers, it hardly can be expected that ten thousand men would ever be exceeded, should Congress authorize twelve thousand men, as here recommended.

"Upon a review of the fortifications which have been erected, and which are now in progress, for the defence of the seacoast, it is found that there is a considerable deficiency of artillerists to serve the guns, and to guard and preserve the forts, as well as the valuable property in them. It is therefore proposed, as above recommended, to augment the number of companies in the artillery from thirty-six, as now authorized, to forty. These companies of artillery it is proposed to distribute along the seaboard, from Eastport, in Maine, to the delta of the Mississippi; and, in order to show the proposed distribution, two tables are here annexed, marked C and D. That marked C shows how the existing thirty-six companies may be most advantageously disposed of; and that marked D, how it is proposed to distribute the forty companies. Also a list of forts on the seacoast, prepared by the adjutant general, marked E.

"The infantry force, with that of the regiment of dragoons, is best adapted to the defence of the frontiers, including the Gulf of Mexico. The present amount of infantry is not sufficient, in the opinion of the undersigned, to afford adequate protection to the inhabitants residing in the States and Territories bordering on our Indian and other frontiers, and guarding the arsenals in the southern and western States.

"If the project above recommended, of organizing the infantry, as exhibited in the paper marked B, be adopted, making the infantry consist of nine regiments, instead of seven, it is proposed that they be distributed on the frontiers, and on the Gulf of Mexico, as shown in paper marked F; which organization and distribution, it is believed, will be the most effectual for maintaining the discipline of the army, and affording protection to our extensive frontiers."

Mr. B. said that this report of the Secretary of War had been referred by the order of the Senate to the Committee on Military Affairs, and this committee had concurred in the opinion of the Secretary, and the general-in-chief of the army, that an augmentation of the troops was necessary. They believed that ten thousand men for service would not exceed the number required; and, to obtain that number for service, they fully concurred in the opinion that it was necessary to authorize an establishment of twelve thousand troops. committee had reported their bill accordingly; and, while providing for this augmentation of the number, they had also proposed to diversify the arms of the troops, and to add riflemen and light infantry; two species of troops peculiarly adapted to frontier service and Indian wars, of which our military establishment was now destitute, and which were called for by the united opinions of military men.

The

Having thus explained the origin of the measure, and