WRITINGS OF SAM HOUSTON, 1842
115
The exigencies of the public service imperiously demand the remedy resorted to; and it was auth~rized by a law approved 12h. June, 1837, and from whose operation the most salutary results have been uniformly experienced. The position has been assumed, that a law of the Congress of 4th February, 1841, has been vio- lated in the dismissal of Captain Williams. The section of that law relied upon by the Honorable Congress to sustain its action, provides only that no officer in the service of the Republic shall be "deprived of his commission, unless by the sentence of a court martial." In this case is would have been impracticable to have assembled a court martial with any prospect of a conviction, because a sufficient number of officers to constitute a court coul'd not have assembled, without including some of those officers who were equally culpable with Captain Williams, and involved in the same mutinous transaction. Therefore, if a force were to be kept in the field, there was no alternative but by a prompt exertion of the power vested in the Executive by the law first referred to, to set an example of punishment that would operate as a warni!1g upon all others disposed to commit like offences, or create like disturbances. This course was therefore adopted, and for the authority to justify the exercise of this power, the Honorable Congress is re- fer.red to the law of 12th June 1837, above quoted. It is believed that the law of February 4th 1841, has no application to the present case. It applies only to commissioned officers. Captain Williams has not been deprived of "his commission"; nor has he been deprived of any office, which entitled him to a commission by our laws. He had voluntarily abandoned the command of his company, and another gentleman had been elected to the command which he voluntarily vacated. Whether Captain Williams was legally elected a Major in the Texas service, is a question which it is not now necessary to determine. He had of his own free will vacated the office of Captain of the company which he commanded- another gentle- man was elected to supply the vacancy thus created. By the action of the Honorable Congress, it is sought to restore him to the command of this company. To do this, the gentleman who has been elected to fill this vacancy must, necessarily, be re- moved. Does not the Honorable Congress perceive that this ac- tion of theirs must, therefore, involve them in a most disagreeable dilemma? If it were unlawful for the Executive to remove
Powered by FlippingBook