<^i^t INCREASE OE THE AEMY. SPEECH -p OF HON. JOHN ArBINGHAM, OF OHIO, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 17, 1858. The House having under consideration the bill to provide lor the organization of a regiment of mounted volunteers for the defense of the frontier of Texas, and to authorize llie President to call into the service of the United Stales four additional regiments of volunteers — ^ Mr. BINGHAM said: Mr. Speaker: I have no desire to protract this debate untiecessarily; but, as at present advised, I shall cast my vote against the bill offered by the majority of the Committee on Military Affairs, as also against the substitute proposed by the hon- orable gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Faulkner.] Ami I desire, inasmuch as my vote shall be so re- corded, to state, as briefly as I may, some of the reasons that will control that vote. It strikes me, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of War has said enough to determine me, at least, in my opposition to the bill reported by the ma- jority of the committee. The President of the United States is, under the Constitution, charged to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. It is his business to advise this House, by his message, and through the proper Departments, not only of the measures which are needful to the execution of the laws; but also of the meas- ures the cheapest and most efficient to that end. The American people have a right to demand not onlyan efficient administration, butan economical execution of the laws. I take it that no gentle- man on this side of the Chamber, or on that side of the Chamber, will be swift in objecting to that proposition. Well, sir, the President'of the United States, in the proper discharge of his duties through the channel of the War Department, has advised us officially, and has officially advised the country, against the very bill which the majority of the Military Committee are now pressing upon the consideration of the House. The bill reported by the majority of the committee, as the House has been advised, is a bill temporarily to increase the Army of the United States, by a volunteer force of some four thousand men. That project is condemned by the Administration, notwithstand- ing the ingenious attempt of the gentleman from lov/a, [Mr. Curtis,] the otherday, to throw the weight of the Administration in favor of this bill. I undertake to say that the bill is condemned, emphatically condemned, by the Administra- tion. Mr. CURTIS. I wish to correct the gentle- man. I am not at all certain that the Adminis- tration is in favor of this bill, and I did not in- tend to assert that it was. What I said was that the Administration asked us to authorize the raising of four or five additional regiments, and did not say of what character of troops. But I did not say the Administration favored the vol- unteers. On the contrary, I am afraid they are not right on this question. Mr. BINGHAM. I have no disposition to misstate the argument of my friend from Iowa; but, sir, I attended very carefully to what he said at the time when he addressed the House, and I am certain that I am not mistaken in saying that he sought to press the Administration into' his service in the advocacy of this bill; because his reported speech, corrected by himself, states that the President is entirely silent as to the description of troops that he wants ! The gentleman from Iowa argues, from this alleged silence of the Pres- ident, that the Administration is not opposed to the bill reported by the majority of the Committee on Military Affairs. The gentleman from Iowa was right, so far as the President's message was concerned, in saying the President was silent as to the character of the troops. But the President has further advised us on the subject through the Secretary of War; and by looking to the official report of that officer you will find that he ex- pressly condemns the project which is recom- mended in the bill of the majority now before the House. The Secretary says: " It will not he denied that an army properly organized and of sufficient strength, constitutes at once the cheapest and most efiicient means by which the indispensable serv- ices it is designed to perform can be secured by the Gov- ernment." That is the general proposition; and it would seem, from what follows, that the Secretary of War designed that the attention of Congress I k 'ft /' I , , , jcially called to it, in anticipation f, "7, for some kindred measure, would be umi iiiiso^ Congress. The Secretary further presentet' ^ ^ says: . , .il bP 8crn Troiii a paper ciiTefitUy prepared in tlic ^ "if thp Adjiil.-iiit tJiiii-ral, that m> iiivrcase of forces is ** .?ru iK.NT OR .NtAR so ciiEAi- u-s tlie aiignicnlalioii of 'It regular Areiiy." Now, sir, if the Secretary of War be right in this, it is very apparent that the majority of the committee was wrong, aliogeilu'r wrong, in rec- ommending this bill to the House at all. Efficiency and cluapncss in any increase of the Army, whether that increase be pcrinanent or temporary, ought not to be lost sight of. The opinion of the Secretary of War condemns the jiroposed measure of the majority because it lacks efficiency and economy. Mr. CURTIS. The gentleman has the opinion of the Secretary of War as to his belief against that of the conimittee. Tiiat is true. lUit 1 would not give the opinion of the romniiilee for that of three such Secretaries of War upon the subject of efficiency and econon)y, because he has not had as much experience as three or four of the mem- bftss of the committee. I say this with due re- spect to the Secretary of War. Mr. BINGH.VM. The gentleman from Iowa is mistaken if he supposes that I undertake to hold the scales of justice here in any judgment to be passed upon the comparative ability — the com- parative military ability, if you please — of the Sec- retary of War and the honorable gentlemen who compose the Military Committee of this House. I am perfectly willing that that grave question shall be settled elsewhere and by a different tri- bunal. I am willing to leave that important ques- tion for settlement to the calm, dispassionate judg- ment of the future historian. At all events, sir, I respectfully decline the office of arbiter or judge upon the relative merits of the military achieve- ments and experience of the honorable three to whom the gentleman refers, and the military jichifevements and experience of the Secretary of War. Mr. CLEMENS. I desire to ask the gentle- man from Iowa a quf stioji. I believe the gentle- man was in command of a volunteer force in the Mexican war .' Mr. CURTIS n.ssented. Mr. CLEMENS. Will he be kind enough to tell me of any civilian in this country who has hapiiened to have command of a volunteer force in any war, who did not, through his self-pride, prefer the force he commanded, and contend that It was su|H-rior to a regular force .' We have vol- unteer gentlemen on the Military Committee, and they, forsooth, an- lietter judges of what the mili- tary defense of the country requires ihun the offi- cers of the regular Army ! Mr. f:nRTI.S. I will say that I do not think JIO. I do not think the volunteers claim to be bel- ter soldi' TK, but th'-y always claim to be equal to the regular forces. Mr. UUrr.MAN. The modesty of the gentle- man from luwu ^>«ji pnvinted hiin from stating that he was educated ai WeiH Point as an officer of the reguliir Army, uiiU 1 believe that before the close of the war he commanded a regiment of reg- ulars. Mr. CURTIS. No, sir. Mr. ClUITMAN. At any rate, he was regu- larly educated to the military profession. Mr. SAVAGE. I think it quite unfortunate that this comparison should be made. It devolves upon me now, however, to answer also as to my position. In the late war with Mexico I belonged to the regular branch of the service. I had the honor first of being a major in the fourteenth divi- sion, and of being at Mulino del Rey a lieutenant colonel in the eleventh divLsion. Prior to that time, many years ago, I had been a very high private: and that is the sum of my experience. Mr. CLEMENS. I understand this to be a qiicslion between the military department of this Government and certain gentlemen of the Com- mittee on Military Affairs. I desire to know from the gentleman from Mississippi, how many other members of the Military Commiuee who have reported against the plan recommended Ity the De- partment for the increase of the Army, happened to be educated at "^est Point.' I would like to know whether the whole of them, with the ex- ception perhaps of the gentlemen from Iowa, were not in command of volunteers in the last war, and whether whatever military reputation they have has not been derived from that war, and that war alone .' Mr. ClUITMAN. If I am permitted, I will answer the gentleman. I will say that 1 believe that two members of the committee were educa- ted at West Point for the profession of a soldier, and that four have commanded regulars. As the gentleman appears to be unacquainted with ^ly poor military history Mr. CLEMENS. I beg the gentleman's par- don. I am familiar with it, and the country is familiar with the great deeds it sets forth. Mr. Q.UITMAN. I, ofcoursc,asa majorgen- eral, belonged to the regular service of the United States. I trust that I have never sliown any hos- tility to that service. 1 do not regard tliis as a controversy between gentlemen, Init as a contro- versy as to the great powers of this Government. I felt it to be my duty, as a member of Congress, to advocate what I believe the country wants — a temporary increase of its military force. The high duty is devolved upon Congress of raising, organ- izing, and equipping armies. For doing this, the responsibility rests with us; and wc are not to be jud";ed by the opinion of the Secretary of War, or tne President, or anybody else, in the dis- charge of that duty. Mr. BINGHAM. I agree with the gentleman from Mississippi. Every member, in his official action on this (lueslion, as upon all other ques- tions, should be governed by what, in his judg- ment, is needful and right and just in the prem- ises, irrespective of any opinion of the Secretary of War or any executive officer. But, sir, when : I made the remark which I did, it unexpectedly called from my friend from Iowa [Mr. Curtis] I a comparison of the military qualifications of the Secretary of War and the honorable gi'iitlemen of tlve Committee on Military Affairs of thisHouse. It was furthest from my purpose to make any ^ siig'i2;estion to the g'ontlemen that they ous^ht to be controlled in the discharge of their official duty here by the mere dictum of the Secretary of War. I wished to have this condict of opinion under- stood. I thought I spoke plainly enougli. By the Constitution of the United States, the exec- utive department of this Government is especially charged with the execution of the laws ot the Uni- ted States. In time of peace, the Army of the United States is kept organized chiefly, if not exclusively, to enable the President to discharge that duty. If, therefore, any increase of the Army of tiie United States, either temporarily or permanently, be needful in this time of pro- found peace, (for it is a time of profound jieace between the United States Government and all foreign nations,) it is for the President, above all ./ others, to know it, and to bring that fact before d Congress; and also to suggest and recommend }h such necessary increase, as well as the kind of force required. I say that the incrfnse of the Army '^J is an Administration measure. If an increase liad Ci-, not been recommended by the President, does 5^ anybody suppose that this House would, upon Q£> its own motion, have proceeded to increase the Army of the United States.' I think not. The remarks which I have sul^mitted upon the kind of forces recommended would not have been in- dulged in by me at all, if one of the members of the committee had not attempted, as I understood him, to press the weight of the Administration into the support of this bill. In answer to that attempt I thought it perfectly legitimate to pre- sent to the House the fact that this bill stands con- demned by the war officer of the Government. I do not know whether this ought to have weight with other gentlemen. In my view of the suliject, I allow it to have weight with me. I shall vote for no increase of the Army, as at present advised. I will hold the Administration responsible for any increase that may be made. Unless the Administration needs an increase of the Army, it ought not to have it; and unless it asks it, it ought not to g8.tit. The Administra- tion has taken particular pains to condemn this bill. It has said in exp'ress terms, through its war officers, that the increase of the regulai-Anny is the most efficient and least expensive to the country. I state this that it may have its due weight with the House and the country. Mr. aUlTMAN. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? It seems to me that we differ as to our duty as members of Congress. We have before us the application of the Legis- lature of the State of Texas, and that is reported on in a part of this bill. We have, also, advices from General Twiggs that the Indians are com- mitting depredations on the frontier. This was brought directly before us from the Legislature of Texas. I ask the gentleman whether he would refuse to act upon it, although he might believe some additional fovce was required for the defense of Texas, or wait to act upon it until he received a recommendation from the Administration.' Mr. BINGHAM. lam greatly obliged to the gentleman for -his suggestion. He will observe that in my remarks, 1 used the words " as at pres- ent advised." The case of Texas had entirely escaped my mind at the moment. The truth is, that in the remarks I have been making, I was directing my attention especially to that: section of the bill which provides four additional regi- ments of volunteers temporarily to be employed, not in Texas, but in Utah and the northwestern frontier. 1 had not in my mind the application of the State of Texas. I am ready to respond to the suggestion of the gentleman from Mississippi. On the petition of the State of Texas, setting forth that additional force was necessary for the protec- tion of life and property in that State, and being satisfied that such force was necessary, I trust I would be as ready as the gentleman from Missis- sippi to vote that additional force. I shall come to that part of my argument presently, which covers the application of Texas, and that section of the bill which provides for volunteers forTexas. Allow me to remark, in passing, that the lan- guage of the Secretary of War, ^lich I have quoted in condemnation of the provi^ns of this bill for raising four additional regiments, applies with equal force to the first section, which provides for raising one regiment of volunteers forTexas. My chief objection to this bill does not originate in the report of the Secretary of War by any means, and applies alike to the bill reported by the ma- jority and the substitute proposed by the honor- able gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Faulkner.] That objection is, that I am not advised of any condition of things in Texas, in Utah, or any- where else within the limits of the United States, which renders it necessartj that there should be any increase of the Army, either temporarily or permanently, either by means of volunteer regi- ments or by means of regulars. Until that neces- sity is made apparent, I shall vote for no increase of the Army. It is well understood and conceded on all sides of the House, that the Army of the United States numbers some fifteen thousand efficient men, and liable to be inci-eased, I believe, by addition of re- cruits, to eighteen thousand, under the existing laws. How is this force employed at present.' In the eastern department, I believe, there are only about eight hundred of them; in Florida there is only a small number — not to exceed a thousand. Where is the residue — where the remaining thir- teen thousand efficient men.' In the departments of the Northwest and of the Pacific. What condi- tion of things exists in thatsectionof the country, which requires there the immediate presence just now of this force of thirteen thousand men .' Can anybody answer.' Three thousand of those effi- cient soldiers of the Army of the United States are within tlie limits of the Territory of Kan- sas, or in its immediate vicinity. Does any- body know that there is any necessity at all for the continuance of that force in that Territory.' Two thousand troops have been thrown forward toward the Territory of Utah, in the direction of Salt Lake City, under command of ColonelJohn- ston, for the purpose of enforcing the law in that Territory; and the four additional regiments pro- viiled for in this bill were recommended by the President, solely upon the ground that there is threatened insurrection in Utah, and this force is necessary to suppress it. For that purpose alone ^^^ does the President ask for this increase. The majority of the committee, of coiirsi", speak for themsL'lvis, and they say that this additional force is wanted for some otlier purposes. They want it not only for Utah, but to defend the emigrant trains, and the northwestern frontier. I deal with this matter, however, not as a measure which par- ticularly belongs to the majority of the Military Committee of this House, but as an Administra- tion measure. When it is proposed to increase the Army on the recommendation of the Execu- tive, I want to know the necessity for it; and to the President it belongs to show to the House and the country that necessity. That showing is the more needlul when the committee report no/rtc<.sin sup- port of their bill. How does the President show this necessity? What does he say about it.' In his annual message, he uses this language when speaking of the insurrection in Utah: '• Govornor VoiiiigJias. by proclatiiatioii, declared his de- tmiiiiiatioii to iiiainVh his power hy force, and has already coiiimillcd acts of hostility against the United States. Un- less he should retrace his steps, the Territory of Utah will he in a slate of open rebellion." What those acts of hostility are, the President has not been careful to tell us. The President furtiier says: " .A. great part of all this may be idle boasting ; but yet no wise Government will lightly estimate the eflbrts which may he inspired by such frenzied fanaticism as exists among the Mormons in Utah. 'J'his is the first rebellion which has existed in ourTerritories ; and humanity itself requires that we should put it down in such a manner that it shall be the last. To iride with it would be to encourage il and to render it formidable. ■-■ There is no rebellion in Utah, according to tliat passage of the message first cited. The President, however, says, in the last passage cited, " this is the first rebellion which has existed in ourTerri- tories." I do not intend to impeach the veracity of the President at large; but, sir, when he is the sole witness upon the stand to satisfy the House of the necessity of this increase of the Army, I will apply to him strictly the rule of the law of evidence, that when he is false in one material matter in issue, he is to be treated as false in all; and 1 shall so hold, wlnuher his falsity arises from corrupt motives, or from a simple want of the necessary information to enable him to tell the truth. Tlie President says further, in relation to this increase of the Army to suppress the alleged insurrection in Utah: " We ouslii to go tlii're with such an imposing force as to convinci- tlifsc: deluded people that resistance would be vain, aiul lliu< spare the elfusion of blood. We can in this manner best convince them that we arc their friends, not llieir cni-mii's. In order to aceoniplish this object it will be necessary, a><-ording to the eslimale of \\w VVar Depart- ment, to raise four additional regiments ; and this 1 earnestly reeomiiiend to t'ongress." For what object? To subdue these Mormons that thrtalin reljeUion. I have already read from the message the words of the President that, •' unless he (Young) siiould retrace his steps, the Territory of Utah will be in a state of open re- Ijellion." These words clearly import that some- thing remains yet to Ijc cl(>n<' before rebellion shall take place; that Young must pursue his course, must advance, or there will be no rebellion in Utah. '• Unless lie re/ioce his stops the Territory of Utuh will be in u state of open rebellion.'' Now, he says, in order to " put down this re- bellion," in order to enforce the law, it will be necessary, according to the estimate of the War Department, to raise four additional regiments; and this he earnestly recommends to Congress. It would have been yery satisfactory to me, Mr. Speaker, as I doubt not it would have been to every geatlcman on this floor, now that we are re- quired to vote on this bill, if the President had advised us whether or not the people of Utah, as a people, have done any act that would justify us in committing against them, as the President pro- poses to do, an act of war? Disguise it as you may, the proposition under- lying this whole proj(>ct — this recommendation of the President, this bill of the majority — is a prop- osition to wage war upon the people within tlie valley of Salt Lake. Now, I am just as ready as any other gentleman on this floor, when the proper occasion arises, to vote the necessary sujiplies of men and money to suppress rebellion in Utah, or anywhere else within the limits of the United States; but I must demand, on my oath and my conscience, before I vote any such supplies, the evidence of their necessity. And I but echo the voice of the civilized world, when I say that no nation should wage war, either foreign or domes- tic, but upon absolute, stern, inevitable necessity. It is the teaching of one of the greatest of all ju- rists, "that war is one of the highest trials of right." Sir, a right must be involved before this highest trial can be justly invoked. What right is involved here ? The right, I suppose, of killing indiscriminately the men, women, and children, of Salt Lake City. I have no other information than that which appearsin the message. It strikes me that the chief ground of all this quarrel, the chief ground of this atteinpt to be made with your Army and four additional regiments to subdue the people of Utah, is their having established in their midst the institution of polygamy — an insti- tution abhorrent to the whole civilized world, a shame and burning di.sgrace to the peojile of the United States. I am^jjyJJing — and, 1 trust, as de- sirous as any one can be — that this institution of polygamy in our mid.st Shall be abolished. Every good citizen of the UnUed States must feel a sense of shame that such -fJii institution has been per- mitted — nay, fostered — under the protection and sanction, if you please, of the Government of the United States. But, I would ask, was not this Brigham Young appointed Governor of that Territory and super- intendent of Indian aflairs by the late Democratic President, (Pierce,) when Young was the chief and head, as he still is, of the insiitution of ])olygamy ? Young i.*? no more a polygamist to- day tluia he was the day he received his commis- sion. The only real ground of complaint that appears against him, so far as I know, is that he refuses, for the time being, to surrender the power thus voluntarily conferred upon him by the Gov- ernment. The reason of this refusal, as made known here by their petition, is that your Army now invading their Territory threatens their de- struction. I do not know that, even if they have violated, as I admit they have, the laws of mo- rality and decency in establishing such an insti- tution, that puts them entirely outside of the pale of humanity, or subjects their women or children, who have had, perhaps, as little hand in the mat- ter as the President of the United States himself, to massacre. I do not see any necessity for it There is an easy way for suppressing polygamy in the Ter- ritory of Utah. That is for the Government of the United States, through Congress, to resume and exercise its rightful authority over that Ter- ritory. I need not be told here that it would be unconstitutional to legislate against polygamy in Utah. Why would it be unconstitutional? Be- cause the Constitution is entirely silent on that subject ? You may make all needful rules and regulations for the government of that Territory. You propose now to make one alleged needful rule and regulation for its government, and that is, to organize four additional regiments for the purpose of holding it under military rule. The Constitution of the United States is, I admit, si- lent as to the crime of polygamy; but it is equally silent as to the crime of murder, or the crime of robbery, and yet you have spread upon your statute-books laws prohibiting the crime of mur- der anywhere within the Territories of the Uni- ted States, or within tlfe exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, and punishing it with death; and you have also United States laws prohibiting the crime of robbery within the Territories or ex- clusive jurisdiction of the United States, and pun- ishing it by line and imprisonment. It is equally •onstitutional to enact that polygamy, committed anywhere within the Territories orexclusivejuris- diction of the United States, shall be held a crime, and that, on due conviction thereof, the party committing it shall be punished with appropriate penalties. I believe there is not a State within the Union in which polygamy is not made a crime by statute, and punished as such. Why should not this offense be at once pro- hibited by law within the Territory of Utah be- fore we make it the pretext for exterminating that people by the sword ? I think it does not become the American Congress to imitate the pernicious example of Caligula in punishing as offenses against the law, acts done before the law was passed, or before the subject had the opportunity of knowing what the law was. I will say further touching this controversy with Utah, that the people of that Territory were lit- erally told by the law of 1854 — told by the Dem- ocratic press from Maine to California — told by the official communications of the Democratic Chief iVIagistrate of the United States, that they, in common with the people of every United Slates Territory, were perfectly free to establish their domestic institutions in their own way, and what- ever domestic institutions- they chose, even that of polygamy. They were further told, sir, that they would be protected in their domestic institu- tions whatever they might be, by the Army and Navy, if need be, of the United States. That was the real position assumed heretofore in regard to this question. In this loathsome institution of polygamy you may see one of the legitimate re- sults of that demagogue cry of " squatter sover- eignty" or the right of the first fifty or five hun- dred adventurers in any Territory of the United States to set up any domestic institutions not expressly in conflict with the Constitution of the United States. Young has literally acted upon your suggestions, and now you propose to destroy him and all his people for doing precisely what you said he might do. I would, then, in this emergency, as the case now stands, say this: that so far as that great of- fense has anything to do in this matter, let us reach it by statute; at least let us start in the right direction, by prohibiting it in the future. Let us do that, and then let us go a step further. Let us first try in the language of the law of nations — that law which ought to govern our municipal regulations, and apply to the domestic wars as well as to national wars — let us try all peace- ful means. To suppress polygamy we are asked to resort to the sword. Have their people other- wise offended ? We have before us the memo- rial of the Legislative Assembly of that Territory, in which they say they are ready to receive any civil officers that may be appointed by the Gov- ernment of the United States, recognizing the au- thority of the Government of the United States, and praying that the Government of the United States will not subject them to the ravage and de- struction attendantupon an invadingarmy. Why not try the experiment of first sending out civil officers to Utah before you send your Army? Send your Governor and send your chief justice, without any military parade, into the Territory, and see if the people there will not peaceably re- ceive them and recognize their authority. If they do, then these four additional regiments are un- necessary. But suppose they are unwilling to listen to the voice of reason, or, as the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Boyce] the other day well said, they have become blind to their own interest, and willing to provoke an extermination by the sword; suppose that to be the actual condition of things, of which I protest I am not advised, nor is any gentleman in this House so advised: still I aver there is already a sufficient force of the Army of the United States in Kansas, which is not needed there, to supply the required four regiments; and which, in conjunction with the force now under Colonel Johnston in Utah, would be sufficient to exterminate all the Mormons in the Utah valley. Mr. Speaker, if I were alone in this opinion, al- though it would suffice for myself, I would not impose it upon any man with a view to affect his vote upon this bill. But, sir, the sufficiency of this Kansas force is not my opinion alone. The late Secretary of War, now a distinguished Sen- ator from Mississippi, [Mr. Davis,] a man as distinguished in the field as in the Cabinet, has recently spoken to the country upon this ques- tion. I think that gentleman fully competent to judge upon this point. He has recently made this distinct announcement: " that the force under the command of Colonel Johnston was, in his judgment, sufficient to put down all resistance in that Territory if theycould reach Salt Lake City." He says funher: " if Colonel Johnston has the transportation which will enable him to move, he will subdue resistance with the force he has." £!•?.' 6 Colonel Johnston's force is now two thousand men. An nddiiinnal forcf of two thousand or twenty-five Imiidii'ii mi-n would cnal)lf! liim to niovf. Tluii IS ilu> opinion ofilif late Secretary ot'War. Thi- Prcside;iit only asks for four addi- tional rcjrimi'Mts, or nliout three thousand men. Thi're istliat fiircforthr'-c tliousand miM),ormore, in Kansas and its vicinity. 'I'iu; President may supply the fi)ur rejriments from that force now wrongfully ki'fU in Kansas. Thisisclear. Where, then, I bej: leave to ask, is the necessity for these additional four reeiments of seven hundred and forty men each .' There is no necessity for it, un- less you deem it necessary to keep the four regi- ments of the reo;ular Army in Kansas perpetually, to enslave, in the future as in the past, lier free citizens. The argument "of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Curtis] proceeded upon the hypothesis that thePresidenioftheUnitcd States isalready armed with sufficient authority, under existing statutes of the Unii.'d States, to employ the Army of the ; United Stales in the supjiression of insurrection or resistance to the laws in Utah. The argument of the gentleman frotn Mississippi [Mr. Quit- man] proceeded upon the same hypothesis. I think those gemlemen were right in their assurnp- tion, and th:it my colleague [Mr. Stanton] was ' wrong in suggesting that the law which gave the | President that power was unconstitutional or in- operative. I believe the statute of 1807 is valid ; and in full force, authorized by the Constitution ' of the United States, and in accordance with the ' plain letter ofthai instrum.'iit. The Constitution authorizes Congress to raise an army, and to provide all necessary rules and regulations for lis government,~and to provide for the common | defense. That is a plain and express grant of: powerto Congress. Where words are plain, there , 18 an end to all construction. The act of 1807, which authorizes the President to employ the Army to suppress obstruction or resistance to the laws of a Territory, is valid. He may, therefore, ' draw from Kans'as three thousand men, if needed i to reinforce Colonel .Johnston, and enable him to move and subdue all resistance in Utah. These I three thousand men are now subject to that ser- [ vice, and useless where they are; I miglitsay they ' are olTensive where they are, but by reason of no fault of theirs Let Governor Cumming, then, take care, at the proper time, to make requisition on the Pres- ident for the troops, and that is all that is wanting ' to give the Priwident full autliorily to act during I ihevHcatinn. This bill, of cour.sc, is not intended to go into operation until after the close of the ses- sion. There in, therefore, nothing in the present j condition of thing.s in Utah, nor in the present regular force of ihe Army, to create a necessitii for ! the proposed increase of either volunteers or rcg- | ulars. At all events, Mr. Speaker, with the dis- i liiiguiHhed ex-Seereiary of War, [Mr. Davis,] I ' ray of the deluded people of Utah, " I want not their blood shed l)y the Government of tlie Uni- ted StaieH." Sir, I do not intend that the blood of that people, or any other people, shall be upon my hnnds, or upon the Army of my country, by any act or vote of mine, until the neceisily for it is not only apparent, but absolutely unavoida- ble. Let the Government of the United States act affirmatively. Tin- Government should not oc- cupy a mere negative position in this matter. Let us first try peaceable means for the settlement of this difficulty. Let us try negotiation. Letustry the organization of a civil government. Let us try to bring that people back to their allegiance, not by force of arms, but by civil, peaceful, quiet, and just means. When every peac(;ful measure has been faithfully tried, and has failed, then, and not till then, let us try the dread arbitrament of the sword. Mr. CURTIS. I understand the proclamation of Brigham Young and the resolutions of the Le- gislature of Utah to say distinctly that no officer shall be permitted to exercise power in that Ter- ritory, unless an officer of their own choosing. Mr. BINGHAM. I must say to the gentleman from Iowa that I understand the very converse of that. I have not had the 0|iportunily to read the petition of the Legislature of Utah, sent here and presented yesterday. I do not know that the gen- tleman has. I heard that petition read from tha Clerk's desk. I understand that it asks that the Government of the United States shall appoint good and Irxie men over them — not men who will abuse and libel and slander them. Be that as it may, so far as the proclamation of Brigham Young is concerned, I do not know how the gentleman knows anything officially concerning it beyond what the President knows and states; that is, that Young says he shnll maintain his power in Utah b^ force. It is not that he will maintain his power uiro7io/u//i/ against the United States by force, but merely that he will maintain his power by force; of course, against any power wrongfully brought against him or his people ! Mr. SAVAGE. Here are the concluding words of the proclamation of Brigham Young, to which I would direct the gentleman's attention: "Therefore, I, I!iii»)iaiii Yoinicr, Governor ;nul Superin- tendent ot" liulian Aftiiir.s tor llie Territory of Iftah, in tho name of the people of the United States in the Teiritorvof Utah, forbid, " First. All armed forces of every description from corn- ing into this 'J'erritory iiiulor any pretense whatever. " Second. That iili the forces in said 'J'erritory liold them- selves in readine.ss to inareli at a moment's notice to repel any and nil such invasion. "'I'hird. !\Iartial law is hereby declared to e.\ist in thi« Territory from and after the pnlilieation of this proelaina- tion ; and no per>()n shall he allowed to pass or repass into, or Ihrouyh. or from, this Territory without a permit from the proper officer." Mr. BINGHAM. I do not intend to waste much time on that document. I do not intend to enter into a special defense ofanylhing it contains. Suppose we treat it here as an authentic document emanating from this man who signs himself I]rig- ham Young, Governoi-and Superintendent of In- dian Affairs.' What does it amount to.' That he will resist any armrd invasion. He is out in the wilderness, three thousand miles from the capital of the country. He is advised that an armed invasion is being made into his Territory. H<; has no evidence that the United States Gov- (M'liment sanctions that invasion, or even knows anything of it. If Young is guilty of treason, first indict him for it, and try to arrest him and bring him to trial and judgrrtent by the ordinary process of the law. Until you at least try to do this, you have no right to make his treason the pretext for the indiscriminate murder of his people. 1 put it to the gallant gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Savage] whether upon a showing of this sort he is willing to send an army of invasion into that Territory not only for the purpose of destroying Brigham Young, but of putting wom.en and chil- dren to the sword? That is the point which is involved here. It is not whether Young has acted wrong in issuing a document of that sort; but is there any evidence of the neceasily of an increase of the Army, and the proposed invasion of that Territory ? I have searched fiu- that evidence, but I have searched in vain. I have challenged the production of that evidence from the other side, but 1 have challenged its production in vain; and until the evidence of that necessity clearly appears I shall not record my vote forthis measure of blood and murder, so help me God! One word more and I have done with this mat- ter. If it were perfectly apparent that the pro- posed increase of the Army of the United States was necessary, as provided in this bill, v/liile the bill authorized the President of the United States to control that force, I could not and would not vote it. I say that it is a humiliating confes- sion to make, but I make it because it is my felt conviction that the President of the United States has already proved himself wholly unfit for the trust;and to-day let me say that, in my judgment, the House would be more in the line of its duty to prefer articles of impeachment against the Presi- dent of the United States for high crimes and mis- demeanois than to vote for four or five additional regiments to be put under his control and author- ity. That necessitii, as I have shown, does not exist; but if it did I could not and would not vote for this bill because it allows the President to control the new force, and 1 believe him unworthy of that trust. I am not alone in this opinion, that the Presi- dent should not be intrusted with this additional force, or with any additional force. This measure has been before another body in the other end of the Capitol — a majority of whom profess to be of the party of the President — and yet, strange to say, that body has rejected both these propo- sitions of an increase of the Army, either by vol- unteers or by regulars. If his professed political friends refuse to intrust this additional power to the President, I think those of us who neverpro- fessed, much less ft-lt, over-confidencein the Pres- ident, may be pardoned if we hesitate and doubt his fitness or fidelity. iVIr. Speaker, 1 would not wantonly speak harshly of the President, but a sense of duty constrains me to say that, in my judgment, the President has proved himself unfit for the trust proposed to be confided to him by this bill. He has grossly abused and betrayed the power conferred upon liim by the existing statute which authorizes the employment of the Army for the suppression of oljatruetions to the laws of the United States, or of any Slate or Territory. Under color of that statute, sir, he has sent three thousand of your Army into Kansas and its im- mediate vicinity to coerce its fieemen into obe- dience to enactments wliirh they never framed or authorized, whicdi Ci)n<;r<'SS never sanctioned, and which have no sanciion but that of the usurp- ers and marauders who invaded and defiled that Territory. As a pretext for this act of oppression, foi this gross breach of trust, the President, in his specji message of the 2d of last month, says, th^pcver since the period of his inau^iu'ation " a lar Jj por- tion of the people of Kansas have been in ~ lion against the Government;" and that| " would have long since subverted the gOA ment established by Congress, had it not protected from their assaults by the troops oflthe United States — that they have constantly |re- nounced and defied the Government to which they owe allegiance, and have at all times been endeavoring to subvert it, and to estalilish a rev- olutionary govern ment under the so-called Topeka constitution." I aver, sii-, that this charge of the President against the people of Kansas, that they have been in rebellion asrainsl the teirilorial gov- ernment estahlislied by Congress, ever since the 4th of March, 1857, or at any time, is a calumny — that it is put forth by the President as a pretext for the military despotism which he has wrong- fully established over them, in violation of his duty, of their riglUs, and of the laws of the coun- try. Against the President's assertion that there is or has been rebellion in Kansas, I interpose, and hold up to the House and the country his solemn declaration in his anniml message, of the 8lh of last December, in which he says that the rebel- lion in Utah is " the first rebellion which has ex- isted in our Territories." Both of these assertions of the President can- not be true. If there has been reheilion in Kan- sas ever since the President's inauguration — if that people have been "all the time" since then in resistance to the laws and authority of the Govern- ment of the United States, it cannot be that the rebellion in Utah is i\n', first reheUicn which has existed in ourTerritoiir s. If thi^ statement con- cerning the rebellion in Utah be tiue, the charge of rebellion in Kansas i.s false; and is, therefore, what I aver it to be, a calumny upon that injured people, and a shameless pretext forthe President's invasion of their rights and betrayal of his duty. Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. J 11!: 011 89tt <^'" lii...^