country, and these volunteers are militia, neither can they be so disposed of. But are they militia? He did not know how they could be distinguished from them. They now form a part of the militia, under the officers of the respective States, and they are so to remain. They are, therefore, volunteer militia, and nothing else.

But gentlemen say, these volunteers can be marched out of the country by their own consent. Will consent make any difference? Will it make an act of Government Constitutional which, without it, would be unconstitutional? The Government of the United States and these volunteers are not the only parties concerned. The people of the United States were the makers of the Constitution, and not these individuals and the General Government; and the respective States cannot surrender their militia, which they have a right to hold for their own security..

H. of R.

be hereafter employed as emergencies may require. It is my duty in all cases to pursue the Constitution of the United States; and, relative to commissions, it will be seen that the President is authorized to commission officers of the United States, whose appointments are not thereby otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. By the Constitution, is reserved to the States, respectively, the appointment of the officers of the militia, employed in the service of the United States, and not only to commission the officers of such militia, but also to fill up vacancies which may be among the militia when in actual service.

It may then be proper to omit, at the present moment, the future direction of the force contemplated, and go on with the bill as soon as possible. Every gentleman knows that Congress have power to provide for calling forth the miliBut the gentleman from the State of Maryland tia to execute the laws of the Union, to suppress (Mr. WRIGHT) says, that the militia may be insurrections, and to repel invasions; and it may called out by the General Government to execute also be known, that the States have to themselves the laws; that the President may be authorized respectively reserved the power to commision the to take possession of Canada by law, and that the officers of militia so called out. The Constitumilitia may be called upon to execute this law. tion admits only two species of forces-a regular This, he considered as an unfounded construc-force and a militia. The President is empowtion of the Constitutional provision. It was surely never meant that the militia should be called upon to execute the laws without the Union, but within it. The law alluded to by the gentleman would be a declaration of war, and not a law of the Union, for the execution of which the President has power given to him to call out the militia.

ered to commission, with consent of the Senate, all officers of regular forces; but to the States is reserved exclusively the right to commission officers of the militia. In this case, then, it is my duty to vote in pursuance of the Constitution, so that so far as that will go, the sovereignty of the respective States shall not be infringed nor impaired.

If the militia can be called out to repel inva- Mr. FISK could not consent to raise any milision, they can be called out to the seaboard or tary force without having in view the object for garrisons, for the purpose of repelling invasion, its employment. It was an objection to the laws whenever well-founded apprehensions are enter- of 1798, for this purpose, that they had no defitained of such an event; and if they go beyond nite object. We must always have an object inthe territory, it would be no less an act of repel-view when we propose to raise a military force, ling invasion than was the first onset.

If, said Mr. T., these volunteers are to be organized as regular troops, not for five years, like the other regulars, but for one year, then whatever men enter the service of the country, will go into this corps; and the army provided by law to be raised, would not be enlisted.

or our conduct would be absurd. We all know the object at present, and the inquiry is, whether or not the force contemplated by this bill will be effectual? He believed it would not.

The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. TROUP) had taken a Constitutional view of this subject, to which he had nothing to add. With respect Mr. T. was willing to authorize the President to the danger which some gentlemen appeared to to accept of the service of fifty thousand volun-apprehend from placing these volunteers under teers for the defence of the country, under the bill as it now stands, which would leave the Government at liberty to send the regular troops abroad, if they found it necessary to do so.

Mr. RHEA.-Mr. Chairman, it is my sincere wish that we could get on with this bill in some mode. The only question arising on this subject and giving cause to this debate is, by whom shall the forces, contemplated to be raised by this bill, be commissioned? Whether by the respective States, or by the President of the United States? In making up my opinion on this subject, I will not take into view to what object the contemplated force may be directed. Let that be a subject of future consideration. There appears no necessity to consider that question now. Let the force be put in the power of the President, and

the President, it was certainly imaginary only; for the President has the power of calling out the whole of the militia, of which he is commander. Where, then, is the difference? But, if the bill remained as at present, there would be great difficulty in filling up vacant offices. By the laws of several of the States, the platoon officers are elected by the soldiers; and if any of these officers fall in Canada, how are their places to be supplied? In the bill, as proposed to be amended, there would be no difficulty on this score.

It was an easy matter to discriminate between volunteers and militia. It is the character of a militiaman to remain at home, under his officers, except called upon for some particular service; but a volunteer, of his own choice, throws off the character of a militiaman, and assumes that of a

The single difference between the two bills is, who shall have the power of making the officers. The proposition for vesting the power of appointing the officers in the President, considering the volunteers as militia, is unconstitutional, as the power is vested in the several States. But gentlemen say, call the force what you will; call it a militia force, or a regular force; let the officers be appointed by the respective States or the President, it matters but little. No man, Mr. C. said, had a higher opinion of the exalted virtues and eminent patriotism of the President than he had. But we ought to be cautious in setting precedents; bad precedents are always imposed in good times. Though the power might not be abused at present, it might hereafter be made use of for the worst purposes. He should have no fear from placing one hundred thousand men But gentlemen say, that the Government has under the present Executive of the United States; not power to send the militia out of the United but, as our Constitution declares that "a wellStates, because the Constitution defines the pur-regulated militia is the best security of a free

State," he should choose rather to leave the appointment of the officers of these volunteers in the States respectively.

H. of R.

its own laws-this is an essential requisite in every Government-it was proper, therefore, that Congress should be authorized to call forth the militia in aid of the civil power to execute the laws of the Union. It was equally important, also, that the United States should have the power of preserving peace and tranquillity within their limits, and of securing themselves against domestic enemies. Very wisely, therefore, were Congress empowered to call forth the militia, or the whole force of the country, for the purpose of suppressing insurrections. And, sir, the United States might require the aid of the militia, not only to execute their laws and to secure themselves against domestic faction, but also for the purpose of defence against an invading foreign enemy. In this last case, therefore, Congress are equally authorized to call upon the militia for

The difficulty which the gentleman from Vermont had suggested, as to the appointment of officers to fill the places of such as may become vacant, might be provided for by an amendment. Mr. PITKIN said, that he rose to express his astonishment at some of the doctrines which have just been advanced on this floor, and particularly by the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. CHEVES ;) doctrines, to him, not less strange than novel. That he could not but feel alarmed when he heard it declared that the President of the United States, under the sanction of a law of Congress, has the power to send the militia of the several States beyond the limits of the United States for the purposes of offensive war; and that alarm was increased when the same gentle-assistance. man had not only said, that this was his own opinion, but had also declared to the House, that he understood that this was the opinion of the President of the United States. Had the gentleman reflected for a moment, it is presumed he never would have mentioned in debate, that such was the opinion of the President, on this or any other subject before the House, as, according to the known rules of order, we are not to be informed of the opinions or wishes of the President of the United States, except by his official communications.

The people of the several States have thus, sir, clearly defined the objects and purposes for which we can call forth the militia: and lest, by implication, Congress might, at some time, encroach upon the rights of the people or of the States, it is provided by an amendment to the Constitution, as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It will be observed, that Congress have power "to provide for calling forth the militia," &c. In pursuance of this authority, acts were passed in 1792 and 1795. The title of the last act is in the very words of the Constitution: "An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."

But, sir, whatever may be the opinion of the President, or any other person, on this subject, I cannot refrain from expressing my most unqualified dissent from such a construction of the Constitution. The power of the General Government over the militia of the several States is clearly and precisely defined in the Constitution By this act provision is made, "that whenever itself. Thus: Section 8-"Congress shall have the United States shall be invaded, or be in impower to provide for calling forth the militia, to minent danger of invasion, from any foreign execute the laws of the Union, to suppress insur-nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the rections, and to repel invasions." 'President of the United States to call forth

6

most convenient to the place of danger, or scene
of action, as he may judge necessary, to repel
such invasion, and to issue his orders," &c.
By the same act, the President is also author-

tions, and to execute the laws of the Union.

The Convention had many difficulties to en-such number of the militia of the State or States counter in the formation of the Constitution. Thirteen distinct and independent States, or sovereignties, by their delegates, had met for the purpose of forming a more perfect Union, and of giving up a part of their State rights, and a por-ized to call forth the militia, to suppress insurrection of their sovereignty, to the General Government. It cannot, for a moment, be supposed, that when they were granting to this General Government extensive and important powers, they should be inattentive as to the extent of the power with which they should invest the Government over their militia. They would leave nothing for construction on the subject. They, therefore, agreed, that in three cases, and in three cases only, Congress should have any power or control over the militia of the States: 1st. To execute the laws of the Union. 2d. To suppress insurrections. 3d. To repel invasions.

Neither the framers of the Constitution, nor the statesmen who passed this law, have ever entertained the idea that Congress had the power to employ the militia of the States in foreign conquest; that no such power was ever granted to the United States, I have been taught to believe ever since I have had any knowledge of the Constitution or its principles; and certain I am, that such an idea has never, until this day, been advanced on this floor.

J

But, Mr. Chairman, it is said by the gentleman from South Carolina, if I rightly understood him, that this provision of the Constitution refers solely to a state of peace; that a new state of things arises from the moment that Congress declares war; that, after a declaration of war, which is one of the highest acts of national sovereignty, it

H. OF R.

Volunteer Corps.

JANUARY, 1812.

But, sir, the Constitution says to us, when you yourselves, by your own acts, by a declaration of war, or in any way, undertake to create the purpose or necessity for calling them forth, you shall not have the power to do it; or, in other words, you shall not have the power to employ the militia in foreign conquests. Sir, the King of Great Britain, with whom rests the power of peace and war, cannot send the militia out of the kingdom. A gentleman from Maryland (Mr. WRIGHT) says that he is restrained by an act of Parliament. Agreed, sir; he is restrained from doing it by a superior power, by the power of the Parliament, which, in this respect, is superior to his. In this country, sir, the Constitution, which is the act of the people, restrains us from doing the same thing.

follows that the United States have the power to may also appropriate money for their support, for dispose of the persons and property of the whole as long a term as we think proper. And here, country for the purpose of carrying on that war; sir, permit me to call the attention of the House and that, if it should be an offensive war, they to this important distinction between the purhave power to march the militia out of the limits poses for calling forth the militia, provided in the of the United States for the purpose of foreign Constitution, and that which, by this new conconquest. The arguments of the gentleman are struction, we are called upon to make. By the ingenious, but destitute of any solid foundation. Constitution we are not empowered to call them Congress, it is true, have the power to declare forth in consequence of any act of our own, but war; but where, let me ask, is that part of the in consequence of the acts of others. When the Constitution which says that the power of Con- laws of the Union are violated; when domestic gress over the militia, is greater or more extensive enemies are arrayed against the General Governin time of war than in time of peace? It can-ment, and when the territory of the United States not be pretended that there is express provision is invaded by a foreign nation, we then call the to this effect. It can arise, then, only by impli- militia to our aid. cation. It is a new and strange mode of construing this instrument to say, that where special and limited powers are given on any subject, that these powers may be extended or enlarged, merely by the exercise of other powers given by the same instrument. I cannot, sir, for a moment, admit the position, that, in consequence of a declaration of war, Congress have the power of disposing of the persons and property of the country to the extent contended for. To enable the United States to carry on a war, Congress are authorized "to raise and support armies ;" "to provide and maintain a Navy." These are the instruments by which the United States are enabled to carry on a war, either offensive or defensive. And when the territory of the United States shall be invaded by a foreign nation, in addition to these, the militia can be called upon to take a part in this defensive war, to repel such invasion. The power, sir, which the States have retained over their militia is the surest, nay the only effectual, safeguard of their rights, against the encroachments of the General Government. If Congress, in consequence of a mere declaration of war, have the power to order the militia of the States out of the limits of the United States for the purpose of foreign conquests, the State governments may not only be weakened, but they may be annihilated. If they can be ordered to Canada, they can be ordered to Jamaica, to the East Indies, to China, to Japan. And in this way a State may at once be deprived of all its effective force. But, sir, let us attend to the consequences of this new construction given to the Constitution in another point of view. So jealous were the framers of the Constitution of the power conferred upon Congress to raise and support armies, that they thought it necessary to place a check upon the exercise of this power, by providing "that no appropriation of money to that use should be for a longer term than two years."

I ask, sir, to address you, merely for the purpose of entering my protest against the principles and doctrines this day advanced by the gentleman from South Carolina; a gentleman whose talents I respect, and whose opinions are entitled to no small share of weight in this House and elsewhere. The remarks I have made flowed from the impulse of the moment, and were made without premeditation and without method, and I have been led, from the nature of the subject, to proceed further than I had intended.

When we are, as many gentlemen have often said, during the present session, on the eve of a war, the avowed object of which is to take possession of Canada, I could not but feel alarmed, that such sentiments were entertained, not only by the gentleman from South Carolina, but, as he informs us, by the President of the United States, to whom the Constitution has committed the power of carrying on the war. Indeed, sir, my mind recoils at the idea, that my constituents, living, as they do, along an extensive seacoast, with their towns and villages exposed to the ravages of the first invader, might soon be liable to be called upon to leave their families and their firesides, and to risk their lives under the walls of Quebec. I could not, sir, refrain from expressing my opinion, that, by the Constitution, they could not thus be compelled, to march into a foreign country without their consent. But, sir, whatever acts we may pass on this subject, we cannot alter the Constitution; the people of the United States will judge whether they are in conformity with the powers which are delegated to us or not;

MONDAY, January 13..

H. OF R.

Resolved, That the Committee on the Public Lands be directed to inquire into the expediency of vesting in the Legislature of the Indiana Territory, such portion of the township of land lying in the District of Vincennes, which was located by the Secretary of the Treasury for the use of a Seminary of Learning, as may be considered sufficient for the establishment of a Seat of Justice, in a contemplated new county, in the said Territory, by a division of the county of Knox.

VOLUNTEER CORPS.

Mr. LITTLE called up his resolution respecting captures made by Great Britain of American vesMr. MILNOR presented a petition of John Bio- sels and property; but an amendment being movren, W. J. Duane, and R. C. Weightman, prayed to add and any other Government," some deing the patronage and aid of Congress, in printing bate ensued, which was interrupted by a new and complete edition of the laws of the United States.-Referred to a select committee. Mr. MILNOR, Mr. CHEVES, and Mr. GRUNDY, were appointed the committee.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter covering a protest by James Dill and Peter Jones, two of the members of the House of Representatives of the Indiana Territory, against the memorial of that body praying Congress to admit the said Territory into the Union as a State, on an equal footing with the original States.-Referred to the committee to whom the said memorial has been referred.,

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting a statement of public moneys now deposited in banks, and in what banks deposited, and showing the greatest amount in each bank, at any period, since the fourth of March last; and, also, the amount deposited in each bank, on the thirtieth of September last.-Ordered to lie on the table. Mr. WILLIAMS, from the Committee on the Military Establishment, to whom was referred the bill from the Senate, " for the establishment of a quartermaster's department," reported the same with amendments; which were read, and, together with the bill, committed to a Committee of the Whole to-morrow.

On motion of Mr. SEYBERT,

Mr. PORTER, who said, though the information which this resolution called for was desirable, he thought a discussion upon it ought not to prevent a progress with more important public business. He hoped, therefore, the resolution would be suffered to lie upon the table for the present, and that the House would take up the bill authorizing the President to accept of a volunteer corps.

The motion was carried, and the House accordingly resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on said bill.

Mr. NELSON rose and observed that he had caught so violent a cold since Saturday, that he feared he should not be able to make himself heard ; and then proceeded for a few minutes with his remarks, but his hoarseness was so great that he was unable to proceed.

Mr. MILNOR said, that an opinion had been advanced and maintained in the debate upon this bill on Saturday last, by an honorable gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. CHEVES,) of so novel and extraordinary a nature, that he felt it his duty to oppose it; that he entered upon this duty reluctantly and unexpectedly, having hoped that during the remarks of the honorable gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. NELSON,) he would have been enabled further to arrange his ideas, or (what was to him still more desirable) have been prevented, by the lucid exposition of that gentleman, whose views on this subject Mr. M. understood to be congenial with his own, from at all troubling the Committee. The indisposition which prevented Mr. NELSON from proceeding, and which was much to be regretted, rendered it necessary that some other member should take his place upon the floor; which Mr. M. said he had ventured to do, although unprepared, and laboring under the disadvantage of having been unavoidably prevented from hearing a part of the argument of the gentleman from South Carolina. The opinion advanced by that gentleman was, that the PresiOn motion of Mr. PITKIN, a committee was ap-dent of the United States had a right to order the pointed to inquire whether any, and, if any, what alterations are necessary to be made in the act or acts "concerning Consuls and Vice Consuls;" with leave to report by bill, or otherwise.

Resolved, That the Secretary of State be directed to lay before this House a list of the names of persons who have invented any new or useful art, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any improvement thereon, and to whom patents have issued for the same from that of fice, subsequent to the twenty-eighth day of December, one thousand eight hundred and ten, with the dates and general objects of such patents; and also that the Secretary of State be directed to lay an annual report before this House, embracing the above objects.

Mr. PITKIN, Mr. BRECKENRIDGE, and Mr. MIT-
CHILL, were appointed the committee.
On motion of Mr. JENNINGS,

militia of the United States beyond the limits of the nation, for the purpose of foreign offensive hostilities. Had this singular sentiment been thrown out as a mere casual suggestion in the course of an animated debate, or proceeded from the wild and heated declamation of some of the actors on this floor, I would not, said Mr. M., have been at