CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



M7 



and still save annually about $4,000,000. Ac- 

 curiliii'.,' to the plan which I then submitted, 

 iiltout half that sum was saved by a reduction 

 in tlio number of officers, for it is notorious 

 tluit the array is overloaded with officers; it 

 is top-heavy. The other half was saved by 

 ing the number of men from 25,000 to 

 20,500, and by a reorganization of the regi- 

 iiK-nM in such a manner as I believed would 

 in ike this reduced number of men quite as 

 i-tTVrtive as the number now in the array 

 25,000. That proposition was adopted in the 

 House, but was rejected in the Senate. The 

 conference committee that had to pass upon 

 tlii-i question was placed in one of the most 

 embarrassing positions which could possibly 

 occur in the legislation of the country. The 

 rule of the House is that any general legisla- 

 tion may be incorporated in an appropriation 

 bill, provided it effects a retrenchment of ex- 

 penditures. The rule of the Senate is that no 

 general legislation can be attached to appro- 

 priation bills. As a matter of course, the rule 

 of the Senate could not by any possibility re- 

 strict or infringe upon the constitutional right 

 of this House to send to that body a bill in 

 any shape or form it may choose; but, on the 

 other hand, it is quite as impossible for this 

 House to constrain the action of the Senate. 

 If that body thought the general legislation 

 upon an appropriation bill to be inadmissible, 

 we have then presented this alternative the 

 failure of the bill or the surrender on the part 

 of this House of its claim to legislate upon 

 appropriation bills. 



" My own judgment and conviction, the 

 fruit of very considerable study before I had 

 the honor to be a member of this House, and 

 of very much observation since I have been 

 here, lead me to the conclusion that as a rule 

 general legislation upon appropriation bills 

 ought to be avoided. But, Mr. Chairman, the 

 question presents itself whether at any time 

 and under any circumstances this House can 

 be justified in insisting upon legislation in an 

 appropriation bill even to the extent of allow- 

 ing the bill to fail. That question is answered 

 by a reference to the history of the birth and 

 growth of British liberty. Redress of griev- 

 ances prior to the passage of appropriation 

 bills, prior to grants of supplies, has been the 

 only instrument by which the British Com- 

 mons have constructed and maintained the 

 edifice of individual liberty. When the ques- 

 tion of personal liberty the right of the sub- 

 ject as it is called in England, the right of the 

 citizen as we call it comes in question, then 

 by every lesson of tradition, by every conclu- 

 sion of statesmanship, this House is not only 

 justified in insisting upon a redress of griev- 

 ances before agreeing to a supply bill, but to 

 do anything else would be to abdicate its 

 powers and to be treacherous to the memory 

 of that long line of heroes who went before 

 us in building up the fabric of human freedom 

 which we inherited from our British fore- 



fathers, and which it is our duty to conserve 

 and protect with the same fidelity as the Eng- 

 lish people to this hoar display through their 

 representatives in the halls of Parliament. 



44 Now, Mr. Chairman, such an occasion 

 arose in the Forty-fourth Congress. There 

 were two conflicts in that Congress, one of 

 which determined the result of the Presiden- 

 tial election. This House agreed to a method 

 of settlement of the gravest of all political 

 questions which had ever arisen in this conn- 

 try, and it was loyal to its engagements. The 

 second question arose on the army appropria- 

 tion bill, and it arose in this wise : It was the 

 conviction of a large majority of the members 

 of this House that the result of the Presiden- 

 tial election was not in accordance with the 

 choice of the people, but was governed, in- 

 fluenced, and controlled by the use of the 

 army in the States of Louisiana and South 

 Carolina. There was then presented to the 

 majority of this House one of those crucial 

 tests which try the patriotism and statesman- 

 ship of Representatives. True to the lessons 

 of the past, they attached to the army appro- 

 priation bill a provision in the exercise of the 

 unquestionable right of Congress directing 

 where, when, and how the army should be 

 used in the States of South Carolina and 

 Louisiana; that the army should not be used 

 to maintain certain State governments which 

 had been created and only kept in existence 

 by the exercise of the military power under 

 the orders of the President. I mean by his 

 ' military power ' his control over the military 

 forces of the country, which he exercised 

 under certain statutes passed at the close of 

 the war. The Senate refused to assent to that 

 provision. 



" Three several conference committees, com- 

 posed of different members, met and conferred 

 upon the matter in difference. They failed to 

 come to an agreement, and the result was, the 

 Forty-fourth Congress adjourned without pass- 

 ing any bill for the support of the army. For 

 one, I approved the steps taken by this House. 

 I felt that to have done less would have been 

 a base surrender of the ripht of a free people 

 to control the army and determine to what 

 use it should be put. I repelled then, and I 

 repel now, the idea that the President of the 

 United States has any other control as Com- 

 mander-in-Chief of the Army except in accord- 

 ance with the statutes which Congress may 

 adopt. He is the organ through which the 

 order of the people, expressed by Congress, is 

 to be given to the army ; and to surrender the 

 power of regulating and controlling the use of 

 the army would be to convert this Government 

 into a centralized despotism. 



"Moreover, I was glad the bill failed. It 

 would have been a misfortune to this country 

 if common ground had been found on that 

 occasion by which this question should have 

 been passed by for the moment and put out of 

 sight. The loss of the bill aroused the atten- 



