45
WRITINGS OF SAM HOUSTON, 1826
marched where they were most needed? The militia were suffi- cient for the purpose of State defence. That State was filled with a dense popu!ation, and the invasion of an enemy could, at any time, be resisted without difficulty, where inclination was not wanting. But, while so much complaint is made, that the regular troops were marched away, it is not amiss to ask, what steps were taken to increase the regular troops, by the recruiting service? Sir, what was the language held in relation to that service in Massachusetts at that time? Did the recruiting officers of the army meet with no obstructions? Was not the regular service entirely discouraged? Did not the civil authorities expressly in- terfere to prevent its success? And did not another authority lend its aid to the discouragement? The gentleman says the Governor did right to refuse obedience to the President's circular; that the General Government had no authority to issue such an order; that the law of 1795 gave au- thority to the President only to call upon the militia officers of the several States; that the new law does not name the Governor, but only the militia officers. This is true. But I will show you that the law of '95 was faulty in this respect. The expression of the law should have been more full. But, still I ask you, how you will separate the Governor from the militia officers of a State, when he is himself ex officio the commander-in-chief of the militia of the State? Is it not true that the civil and military functions are both united in him? Then, I am unable to perceive the distinction between a militia officer and the commander-in- chief of the militia.· And, I say, it would be irregular in the General Government to issue an order to any subordinate officer, without that order first passing through the commander-in-chief. All regular details of troops from a State, must be made through the Governor of that State by the officers of the General Govern- ment, unless in extreme cases. If this rule be disregarded, there will be no medium at which to stop, between a Governor of the State and a corporal of a squad. The Governor has the roster of his general officers, and can with regularity and facility reach the losest detail of his command. But it has been emphatically asked, where is the power of the Governor to thrust himself between the physical power of the State and that of the General Government? Sir, I ask the same question. I want to find this power as much as the gentleman does. I believe there is but one precedent for it, and that is in the case of the Governor of Massachusetts. Did not the Governor
Powered by FlippingBook