FEB. 15, 1837.] Burning of Public Buildings--Trade with Belgium, &c. [SENATE. After a few remarks on Mr. EwING's amendment, by the Senate yesterday, he had promised to ascertain from Messrs. BAYARD and PRESTON, The Senate adjourned. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15. BURNING OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS. The bill to alter and amend the act of 1790, for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, being taken up- Mr. PRENTISS said he was so much opposed, in principle, to the provisions of the bill, the punishment imposed by it appeared to him to be of so sanguinary a character, so much behind the spirit of the age, that he felt constrained to resist it, and record his name against it in every stage of its progress. The bill not only inflicts the punishment of death upon any person who shall maliciously burn, or procure, command, counsel, or advise any one to burn, any public building, but it contains no limitation upon the prosecution of the offence; so that a person may be arraigned and tried at any distance of time, however remote, when he may be wholly unable, by lapse of time, to avail himself of the testimony necessary for his defence. It was to be further observed that the bill was not confined to the burning of the public offices, containing the public records, but extended to the burning of any public building, such as an engine-house, a wood-house, or even a watch-house. the Department the comparative state of the Dutch and American tonnage, as employed in the Holland trade during the past year. He had done so; and it appeared from the result that the amount of Dutch tonnage was In the year 1834, the amount of American tonnage in this In 1835, In 1836, while the amounts of Dutch tonnage, on the contrary, In 1834, the Dutch tonnage was In 1836, 1,651 tons. 3,058 5,401 Mr. CLAY said that, when we saw, for three successive years, a regular diminution of American tonnage, and a regular increase of the competing foreign tonnage, there could be no doubt that both results proceeded from a common cause. The act of 1824 proceeded on the principle of entire and perfect reciprocity. That principle had been departed from by the Government The punishment, under the existing laws, was confine of Holland, while Belgium was in union with Holland. ment to hard labor, and but one instance of the commis- There was much reason to believe that the present relsion of the offence had occurred in half a century. We ative condition of the navigation of America and of were now about to change the law, and substitute the Holland was the result of that departure. Under those punishment of death for confinement at hard labor; and circumstances, it seemed that, though the Senate could we were doing this at a time when England and many not well refuse to pass the present bill, which did nothother Governments in Europe were engaged in reforming but put Holland and Belgium on the same footing, ing and ameliorating their criminal code. The bill put the offence on the same grade with murder and treason, the highest crimes known to law. The object of punishment was the prevention of crime; and all experience showed that the certainty of punishment was much more effectual than the severity of punishment in the prevention of crime. The burning of a public building was undoubtedly a very high offence, but it was well known that the difficulty of conviction was always increased in proportion as the punishment was aggravated. If there was absolute certainty in human testimony, the objection to the bill might not be so strong; but the reverse was true, for the history of criminal trials showed that many innocent persons had been convicted and executed. Mr. P. was opposed to the bill on the great principles of justice and humanity; he was opposed to it as destroying all just distinctions between crimes, as inflicting a punishment vastly disproportionate to the offence, and altogether inconsistent with the general spirit of our criminal code; and he felt compelled to ask for the yeas and nays. The bill was then passed, by the following vote: YEAS--Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Black, Clay, Clayton, Cuthbert, Dana, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, Lyon, Morris, Mouton, Nicholas, Norvell, Page, Preston, Robbins, Ruggles, Sevier, Strange, Tallmadge, Tipton, White, Wright--29. NAYS--Messrs. Buchanan, Davis, Ewing of Illinois, Hendricks, Kent, McKean, Moore, Niles, Parker, Prentiss, Rives, Robinson, Southard, Swift, Walker, Wall, Webster--17. TRADE WITH BELGIUM. The bill respecting the discriminating duties on Dutch and Belgian vessels and their cargoes coming up on its passage- Mr. BUCHANAN said that, when this bill was before the Executive was bound to enforce the provisions of the act of 1824 to both Governments. He trusted this would be done. Mr. DAVIS, who had not been present when the bill was introduced, was desirous that the bill should lie over for one day, in order that he might have an opportunity to look a little into the returns stating the existing condition of the trade, with a view of judging of the true cause of the present state of things. Possibly this act might be construed as an evidence that this Government was prepared to extend the relaxation of the provisions of the act of 1824, though he was very sure the Senator who introduced the bill had no such intention. Mr. BUCHANAN concurred in the views expressed by the Senator from Kentucky, and explained that the proviso in this bill had been introduced with an express view to enable the President to apply the provisions of the act of 1824 to both Holland and Belgium. Mr. CUTHBERT contended that the true standard by which to judge of the existing indulgence to Holland was not the immediate effect of it on the comparative navigation of the two countries, but its effect as an example and a precedent, which was likely to induce other nations to pursue the same course which had been adopted by the Dutch Government. The question was then taken, and the bill was passed. CUMBERLAND ROAD. The Senate proceeded to the further consideration of the bill to continue the Cumberland road in the States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. *On motion of Mr. CLAY, the appropriations were so amended as to allow Ohio $190,000 in addition to the unexpended balance, Indiana $100,000, and Illinois $100,000; making an aggregate of $390,000, besides unexpended balances. The remaining amendments, made as in Committee of the Whole, were severally considered, and, after a re SENATE.] Pay of Volunteers--Increase of the Army. newal of the former discussions, were adopted in Sen ate. On motion of Mr. CLAY, the bill was further amended by adding a proviso to the end of the first section, requiring that the construction of the road should be let out, in suitable sections, after due notice, to the lowest bidders. Mr. WALKER moved to amend the third section of the bill by inserting a disclaimer of the faith of Government being pledged by this bill to do any thing further in the construction or repair of the Cumberland road. After debate, the amendment was lost, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Black, Brown, Calhoun, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Lyon, Moore, Norvell, Page, Parker, Preston, Rives, Strange, Walker, Wall, White--17. NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Buchanan, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, Linn, Morris, Robbins, Robinson, Sevier, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Tomlinson, Wright--23. The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, by yeas and nays, on the call of Mr. NORVELL, as follows: YEAS--Messrs. Benton, Buchanan, Clay, Crittenden, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Ewing of Ohio, Fulton, Hendricks, Kent, Knight, Linn, Morris, Nicholas, Niles, Page, Robbins, Ruggles, Sevier, Southard, Spence, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Wright--25. NAYS-Messrs. Black, Brown, Calhoun, Clayton, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Lyon, Moore, Norvell, Parker, Prentiss, Preston, Rives, Strange, Walker, Wall, White--18. PAY OF VOLUNTEERS. On motion of Mr. CRITTENDEN, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill to make compensation to the Kentucky and Tennessee volunteers, who were discharged without being called into service. Mr. BENTON moved to amend the bill by allowing the above volunteers one month's pay. Mr. WHITE moved to amend this amendment by striking out one month, and inserting three months. After debate, by Messrs. PRESTON, CRITTENDEN, GRUNDY, WHITE, and WRIGHT, Mr. WHITE'S amendment was tried and lost. The amendment of Mr. BENTON, allowing one month's pay, was then carried, without a division. On motions of Messrs. MOORE and WALKER, the names of Alabama and Mississippi were annexed to those of Kentucky and Tennessee in the bill. Mr. CRITTENDEN moved further to amend the bill by confining the compensation to those volunteers whose services were accepted. Carried: Ayes 18, noes 10. The bill, with the amendments, was then ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. The Senate adjourned. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16. INCREASE OF THE ARMY. The bill to increase the military establishment of the United States being at its third reading, and the question being on its passage Mr. SOUTHARD demanded the yeas and nays, and they were ordered by the Senate. Mr. CALHOUN addressed the Senate at length in opposition to the bill, not, however, as he said, with the least hope of preventing its passage; there was money in the Treasury, and it must be spent; and this he knew would prove, with many gentlemen, a reason why the bill must pass. Yet, bearing a certain relation to this branch of our establishment, he felt called upon to say a [FEB. 16, 1857. few words, and they should be very few. He could not assent to the bill. The object it proposed was useless, and a good deal more than useless. The bill proposed to increase our existing military establishment, as a peace establishment, too, by the addition of 5,500 men, making the aggregate amount of the army over 12,000 men, and augmenting the expense of its maintenance by a million and a half or two millions of dollars. Was this necessary? He contended that it was not, and that there never was a time when there was so little necessity for a measure of this character. Abroad we were at peace with all the world; and as to Mexico, he believed nogentleman seriously contemplated that we were to go to war with her. Never had there been a time when so little force was necessary to put our Indian relations upon the safest footing. Our Indian frontier had, within a few years, been contracted to one half its former dimensions. It had formerly reached from Detroit all the way round to the mouth of the St. Mary's, in Georgia; whereas, at present, its utmost extent was from St. Peter's to the Red river. To guard this frontier, the Government bad nine regiments of artillery, seven of infantry, and two of dragoons. He would submit to every one to say whether such a line could not be amply defended by such a force. Supposing one regiment to be stationed at St. Louis, and another at Baton Rouge, there still remained seven regiments to be extended from St. Peter's to Red river. Supposing one of them to be stationed at St. Peter's, one upon the Missouri, one in Arkansas, and one upon the Red river, there were still three left at the disposal of the Government. He contended that this force was not only sufficient, but ample. He should be told that there was a very large Indian force upon this frontier. That was very true. But the larger that force was, the more secure did it render our position; provided the Government appointed among them faithful Indian agents, who enjoyed their confidence, and who would be sustained by the Government in measures for their benefit. Of what did this vast Indian force consist? In the first place, there were the Choctaws, who had removed beyond the Mississippi with their own consent; a people always friendly to this Government, and whose boast it was that they had never shed, in a hostile manner, one drop of the white man's blood. Their friendship was moreover secured by heavy annuities, which must at once be forfeited by any hostile movement. Whenever this was the case, the Government possessed complete control, by the strong consideration of interest. Next came the friendly Creeks, who had all gone voluntarily to the west bank of the river. Then came the friendly Cherokees, who had done the same thing; and next the Chickasaws, whom we also held by heavy annuities. All this vast body of Indians were friendly toward the United States, save a little branch of the Creeks; and it would be easy for any prudent administration, by selecting proper agents, and sustaining them in wise measures, to keep the whole of these people peaceable and in friendship with this Government, and they would prove an effectual barrier against the incursions of the wild Indians in the prairies beyond. But to increase largely our military force would be the most certain means of provoking a war, especially if improper agents were sent among them-political partisans and selfish land speculators. Men of this cast would be the more bold in their measures, the more troops were ready to sustain them; every body knew that Indian force, when fairly opposed to white in the field, was as nothing. Where there were no swamps and fastnesses, but they had to contend in the open field, they were not more formidable than buffalo. Now, they were congregated in a high, dry, prairie country, and in a country of that description, opposed to horse or artillery, they could do nothing. Mr. C. then proceeded to denounce the bill as a measure of extravagance, designed chiefly to expend the money in the Treasury for objects not only unnecessary but pernicious. He went into some general observations on the corrupting tendency of the present course of policy, and then observed that every change that had been made in the army had gone to destroy its morale. He had not the least confidence that the proper materiel would be selected in the bestowment of the many prizes which this bill proposed to create. All must remember what had been the history of the regiment of dragoons in this respect. Who had been appointed to command in that corps? In many instances cadets who had been discharged for misconduct in the Military Academy. Persons of this cast had been set over those who had gone through the whole course in that institution in a manner most highly creditable. The effect had been demoralizing, and he feared that the results of this bill would prove still more so. Mr. C. then proceeded in a course of general objection to all measures calculated to increase the powers of the General Government; dwelt on the central tendency of our system; the necessity of diminishing and generalizing the action of this Government, as our population increased. He compared the Government to a partnership. While there were but few partners, the regulations might be minute and particular; but when they were numerous, and amounted to hundreds, the system must be more general. Our chief arm of defence was the navy. This was exterior in its character, and less dangerous on the ground of patronage; and it would be his policy to increase this arm of the national force, and to render it respectable in the eyes of foreign nations. Then, this Government needed a sound Judiciary and a well-regulated Post Office; and beyond this he would not advance one inch. He concluded by remarks of a general character on the state of the Treasury, and the determination to expend the surplus, that it might not be returned to the people. Mr. BENTON replied to the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] and congratulated himself on the easy task which he had to perform in answering all his objections to this bill; for he had nothing to do but to bring the gentleman who was Secretary at War under Mr. Monroe's administration, to answer the gentleman who was now Senator in Congress from the State of South Carolina. The quondam Secretary would answer the Senator most completely; and to enable the Senate to make the full application of what he should read, he would first remind them of the circumstances under which the former Secretary at War had made the report, which was now to be produced as an answer to the Senator's speech. It would be remembered, (said Mr. B.,) that at the close of the late war with Great Britain, the war establishment of the army was reduced to a peace establishment, and that this peace establishment was still further reduced in 1821, when the Treasury, from a dream of inexhaustible surplus revenue in which it had been indulging for a few years, was suddenly waked up to the reality of empty coffers, unavailable funds, and unreliable resources. The aggregate of the peace establishment of 1815 was 12,656. In the year 1818 it was proposed in Congress to reduce that number; and to enable members to act with full information on the subject, the Secretary of War, then happening to be the present Senator from South Carolina now objecting to this bill, was called upon to report whether, with safety to the public service, any reduction could be made, either in the rank and file of the army, or in the general staff, or in the expense of the establishment itself. The Secretary answered upon all three points; and it so happens that he has spoken to the same three points this day. He bas objected to this bill because it increases the rank [SENATE. and file, because it increases the general staff, and because it increases the expense of the army. It also further so happens that his report and his speech are not only on the same subject, but actually on the same measure! for the peace establishment of 1815 was authorized by a law which retained a force of 12,656 men; and this bill is to raise the present force of the army to about 12,500. The two establishments, then, are practically the same; the object of the present bill is to revive the establishment of 1815, with some diminution in the general staff, but, as establishments, they may be considered as the same. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] opposes the present increase, and opposes it in all its branches-rank and file, general staff, and expense; and he opposes it upon all the grounds which can be assumed against a standing army in time of peace-unnecessary, unwise, dangerous, contrary to republican maxims, only tending to expend public money without public advantage, alarmingly increasing the patronage of the Government, multiplying the sources of corruption, and endangering all that is dear in the eyes of the patriot, the sage, and the statesman, and preventing a distribution of the surplus. Very good, (said Mr. B.) Fine charges, these, against the 12,500 men proposed to be re-established by this bill! Let us see how they will be answered in a report in defence of the same establishment, when in fact they were 12,656; and when the population of the country was only half what it now is, and its frontier much less; for Florida was not then acquired. Mr. B. then read: "In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives, passed the 17th of April last, (1818,) directing the Secretary of War to report, at an early period of the next session of Congress, whether any, and, if any, what reduction may be made in the military peace establishment of the United States with safety to the public service,' &c., I have the honor to submit the following report: "Pursuing the subject in the order in which it has been stated, the first question which offers itself for consideration is, whether our military establishment can be reduced with safety to the public service, or can its expenditures be with propriety reduced, by reducing the army itself. * "The military establishments of 1802 and 1808 have been admitted, almost universally, to be sufficiently small. The latter, it is true, received an enlargement from the uncertain state of our foreign relations at that time; but the former was established at a period of profound quiet, (the commencement of Mr. Jefferson's administration,) and was professedly reduced, with a view to economy, to the smallest number then supposed to be consistent with the public safety. Assuming these as a standard, and comparing the present establishment with them, and taking into comparison the increase of the country, a satisfactory opinion may be formed on a subject which might otherwise admit of a great diversity of opinion. Our military peace establisliment is limited, by the act of 1815, passed at the termination of the late war, at 10,000 men. The corps of engineers and of ordnance, by that and a subsequent act, were retained as they then existed; and the President was directed to constitute the establishment of such portions of artillery, infantry, and riflemen, as he might judge proper. The general orders of the 17th of May, 1815, fix the artillery at 3,200; the light artillery at 660; the infantry 5,440; and the rifle 660 privates and matrosses. Document A exhibits a statement of the military establishment, including the general staff, as at present organized; and B exhibits & similar view of those of 1802 and 1808; by a reference to which it will appear that our military establishments, at the respective SENATE.] Increase of the Army. periods, taken in the order of their dates, present an aggregate of 3,323, 9,996, and 12,656. It is obvious that the establishment of 1808, compared with the then population and wealth of the country, the number and extent of military posts, is larger in proportion than the present; but the unsettled state of our relations with France and England at that period renders the comparison not entirely just. Passing, then, that of 1808, let us compare the establishment of 1802 with the present. To form a correct comparison, it will be necessary to compare the capacity and necessities of the country then with those of the present time. Since that period our population has nearly doubled, and our wealth more than doubled. We have added Louisiana to our possessions, and with it a great extent of frontier, both maritime and inland. With the extension of our frontier, and the increase of our commercial cities, our military posts and fortifications have been greatly multiplied. • If, then, the military establishment of 1802 be assumed to be as small as was then consistent with the safety of the country, our present establishment, when we take into the comparison the prodigious increase of wealth, population, extent of territory, number and distance of military posts, cannot be pronounced extravagant; but, on the contrary, after a fair and full comparison, that of the former period must, in proportion to the necessities and capacity of the country, be admitted to be quite as large as the present; and, on the assumption that the establishment of 1802 was as small as the public safety would then admit, a reduction of the expense of our present establishment cannot be made, with safety to the public service, by reducing the army. In coming to this conclusion, I have not overlooked the maxim that a large standing army is dangerous to the liberty of the country, and that our ultimate reliance for defence ought to be on the militia. * To consider the present army as dangerous to our liberty partakes, it is conceived, more of timidity than wisdom. ence. * * "The staff, as organized by the act of the last session, combines simplicity with efficiency, and is considered to be superior to that of the periods to which I have referIn estimating the expenses of the army, and particularly that of the staff, the two most expensive branches of it (the engineer and ordnance departments) ought not fairly to be included. Their duties are connected with the permanent preparation and defence of the country, and have so little reference to the existing military establishment, that if the army were reduced to a single regiment, no reduction could safely be made in either of them. To form a correct estimate of the duties of the other branches of the staff, and consequently the number of officers required, we must take into consid. eration not only the number of the troops, and, consequently, the number of officers required, but, what is equally essential, the number of posts and extent of country which they occupy. Were our military estab lishment reduced one half, it is obvious that, if the same posts continued to be occupied which now are, the same number of officers in the quartermaster's, commissary's, paymaster's, medical, and adjutant and inspector general's departments would be required. "To compare, then, as it is sometimes done, our staff with those of European armies assembled in large bodies, is manifestly unfair. The act of the last session, it is believed, has made all the reduction which ought to be attempted. It has rendered the staff efficient, without making it expensive. Such a staff is not only indispensable to the efficiency of the army, but is also necessary to a proper economy of its disbursements; and should an attempt be made at retrenchment, by reducing the present number, it would, in its consequences, probably prove wasteful and extravagant. [FEB. 16, 1837. "In fact, no part of our military organization requires more attention in peace than the general staff. It is in every service invariably the last in attaining perfection; and, if neglected in peace, when there is leisure, it will be impossible, in the midst of the hurry and bustle of war, to bring it to perfection. It is in peace that it should receive a perfect organization, and that the offi cers should be trained to method and punctuality; so that, at the commencement of a war, instead of creating anew, nothing more should be necessary than to give to it the necessary enlargement. In this country, particularly, the staff cannot be neglected with impunity. Diffi cult as its operations are in actual service every where, it has here to encounter great and peculiar impediments, from the extent of the country, the badness and frequently the want of roads, and the sudden and unexpected calls which are often made on the militia. If it could be shown that the staff, in its present extent, was not necessary in peace, it would, with the view taken, be unwise to lop off any of its branches which would be necessary in actual service. With a defective staff, we must carry on our military operations under great disadvantages, and be exposed, particularly at the commencement of a war, to great losses, embarrassments, and disasters. * "The next question which presents itself for consideration is, can the expenses of our military establishment be reduced without injury to the public service, by reducing the pay and emoluments of the officers and soldiers' There is no class in the community whose compensation has advanced less, since the termination of the war of the Revolution, than that of the officers and soldiers of our army. While money bas depreciated more rapidly than at any other period, and the price of all the necessaries of life has advanced proportionably, their compensation has remained nearly stationary. The effects are severely felt by the subaltern officers. It requires the most rigid economy for them to subsist on their pay and emoluments. Documents marked F and G exhibit the pay and subsistence during the Revolution and as at present established; and document marked II exhibits the allowance of clothing, fuel, forage, transportation, quarters, waiters, stationery, and straw, at the termination of the revolutionary war, and in 1802, 1815, and 1818. By a reference to those documents it will be seen that, under most of the heads, the variations of the different periods have been very small, and that, on a comparison of the whole, the pay of an officer is not near equal now (if allowance is made for the depreciation of money) to what it was during the Revolution. I will abstain from further remarks, as it must be obvious, from these statements, that the expense of our military establishment cannot be materially reduced without injury to the public service, by reducing the pay and emoluments of the officers and soldiers." Having read these extracts from the report of the then Secretary at War, and now Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] Mr. B. said that every word of it applied with double force in favor of the bill which that Senator was now opposing. Every reason which he gave against reducing the military establishment in 1818 applies with double force in favor of raising it now to what it was then. That report was then sanctioned by Congress. It prevented the reduction of the army. Not a man was reduced at that time, nor for three years afterwards, nor until the exhausted state of the Treasury compelled reductions of expense at all practicable points, and included the army in the objects on which retrenchment fell. The report prevented the reduction in 1818; the emptiness of the Treasury caused the reduction in 1821; and now, when the Treasury is full again, and when the wants of the service are so urgent for an increased force, and FEB. 16, 1837.] was. who could do them no wrong. In the fifth place, Mr. B. said the country was twice as populous and twice as wealthy now as it was in 1818, and therefore required a larger military establishment now than then. For these reasons, Mr. B. insisted that the report from which he had read was far stronger in favor of raising the military establishment to about 12,000 now, than it was against reducing it below that number at the time it was made. Add to this the pertinent remark, so often made by the then Secretary of War in the report of 1818, that 12,000 men was less-the increase of territory, wealth, and population, considered-than the peace establishment of Mr. Jefferson was in 1802. An establishment now, in proportion to that, would exceed 20,000 men. Mr. B. having shown how cogently the report of 1818 applied in favor of raising the strength of the army to the number proposed in the bill, would also show that it was equally cogent in favor of raising the general staff. He remarked that the reduction of 1821 fell upon two branches of the establishment-upon the rank and file and on the general staff. Begging the Senate to recollect and well to consider all that was said in the report of 1818 in favor of keeping up a numerous and effi cient staff, and the opinion so fully and elaborately given that the staff of that period was as small in number as the public service would permit, Mr. B. would first state, in general, and then show in detail, that the general staff, as proposed to be increased in this bill, was stili considerably below that of 1818; and, consequently, that the objections to reduction, made at that time, applied with infinitely more force in favor of augmentation now. The general staff was reduced almost to nothing in 1821; it was almost abolished; and the consequence has been an immense injury to the public service. It is now proposed to raise it, but not to raise it so high as it was before the reduction; and to this augmentation the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] vehemently objects. Without reading over again that part of his duction, Mr. B. would show that the augmentation now proposed was far below that which he then so elaborateİy eulogized, so completely demonstrated to be necessa ry, and so triumphantly rescued from reduction or dimi when experience has proved the mischiefs resulting from the reduction, surely the sound arguments in the report ought to have their full weight in re-establishing the military force at what it then was. Mr. B. said that he had not read this report for the purpose of showing inconsistency in the Senator from South Carolina; that would be a small business for him to engage in, and a business which he had never followed. He had read it for the sound arguments which it contained, and in answer to the unsound arguments, as he conceived them to be, which the author of the report, in his present capacity of Senator, had used against the bill now depending, to raise the strength of the army to what it then He had read it for the argument; and if a show of inconsistency resulted, it was an incident, and not an object, of the reading. He repeated, he had read it for the argument; and must be permitted to insist that what was a good argument against reducing the army below 12,656 in 1818, was a far better argument in favor of raising it to about 12,000 now. The reasons were far stronger in favor of that number now than then. In the first place, the extent of our frontier line is greatly increased since that time. Fiorida has been since acquired, and has given a great extent of frontier; for, being a peninsula in one part, and stretching along the Gulf and Atlantic coast on two sides, it is all frontier, and susceptible only of a thin population, and requires more defence tban any other of equal extent, either in our own country or any country upon the globe. With Florida came the islands Key West, the Dry Tortugas, and others, all requiring forts and garrisons. In the next place, the number of our fortifications and military posts has greatly increased since 1818, and requires an increased force to man them. In the third place, the whole Indian population of the United States are now accumulated on the weakest frontier of the Union-the Western, and Southwestern, and Northwestern frontier-and they are not only accumulated there, but sent there smarting with the lash of recent chastisement, burning with revenge for recent defeats, completely armed by the Uni-report of 1818 which applied to this branch of the reted States, and placed in communication with the wild Indians of the West, the numerous and fierce tribes tcwards Mexico, the Rocky Mountains, and the Northwest, who have never felt our arms, and who will be ready to join in any inroad upon our frontiers. In the fourth place, experience has shown that the present army is too small-that the then Secretary at War was right in 1818, in saying that it could not be reduced with safety to the country. The Secretary of 1818 was right in this opinion. The country has suffered vastly from it; it has suffered in lives, property, and money. The Black Hawk war, which cost three millions of money, many lives, and the breaking up of the Illinois frontier, took place because the force on the upper Mississippi was too small to command the respect of the Indians. The Florida war, which has cost seven millions of money, occasioned the loss of so many lives, and the devastation of four counties, would never have taken place if an adequate force had been in that quarter. The massacre of families, and the devastation of farms and plantations, which took place in Georgia and Alabama last summer, were the fruit of our small military establishment. Mr. B. did not undertake to say that the In-plated additions. In the ordnance department, Mr. B. dians, in all these instances, did not believe that they had some grievances to complain of, and for which they were entitled to redress; but what he did mean to say was this: that if we had possessed a military force to have been respected by them, they would have left the redress of these grievances to the Government of the United States, as they ought to have done, instead of taking vengeance into their own hands, and executing it, not upon those of whom they complained, but against innocent persons-against the women and children even, nution. Mr. B. then proceeded to show, in detail, that the general staff was greater in 1818 than it was proposed to be made by the pending bill. Beginning with the adjutant general's and inspector general's departments, he said that they consisted of thirteen officers in 1818, of three now, and that this proposed to add eight, making eleven. The quartermaster general's department consisted of nineteen officers in 1818, of five now, and the bill proposed to add twelve, making in the whole sevenThe engineers proper, and the topographical engineers, Mr. B. said, were nominally increased, but in reality not; for the act of 1824, which allowed the Presi dent to employ an unlimited number of civil engineers, and under which a great number were constantly employed, was to be repealed by a section of this bill, so that the discontinuance of those now employed under that act would be equal, or superior, to the contem teen. said there were forty-four officers in 1818, but fourteen now, and only twenty-two were proposed to be added, making in the whole thirty-six, and being eight less than in 1818. Mr. B. had gone over this comparative state of numbers, both in the line and in the general staff, for the purpose of showing to the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] that the aggregate of the army would be no greater under this bill than it was in 1818, when he so nobly and efficiently defended it, and that the general staff would still be less than it was at that time, and |