HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, May 3, 1861.On motion by Mr. GIFFORD, the reading of the journal of yesterday was dispensed with.
MISSION TO KENTUCKY.
Mr. JENKINSON submitted a joint resolution. It was read as follows:
Resolved, &c., That three members of the House, to be selected by the House, and two members of the Senate, to be selected by the Senate, be and they are hereby appointed a committee to visit Frankfort, Kentucky, at the meeting of the Kentucky Legislature, and to confer on the present crisis with the Legislature of Kentucky and assure the Union men of Kentucky of our cordial support of their endeavors to preserve that gallant old State in the Union, and to prevent the Tennessee troops from crossing her borders to invade the State of Illinois at Cairo.
He wanted the State of Indiana to hold out the olive branch, and to give to patriotic old Kentucky the opportunity to say to Gen. Gid. Pillow that he can't come over the soil of Kentucky with an invading force. This resolution should pass unanimously, and these men should go down next week and tell them what Indiana wants; that we sympathize, that we will do anything that is honorable for peace; that their mission is for peace and the preservation of the Union. And then, after that, if they compel us to fight, God save the hindmost. [Laughter.]
Mr. BUNDY regretted the introduction of the resolution at this juncture. There was one resolution already in the hands of a committee of five. That committee have not reported, but will, perhaps, to-day or to-morrow. Whether I go for. this resolution or not, I do not think we ought to be in too great haste to pass it. I will move that page: 65[View Page 65] it be referred to that committee of five. It is highly important, Mr. Speaker, that the subject matter of this resolution should be carefully considered and matured before its passage.
Mr. JENKINSON did not see the necessity of delay. He wanted these men appointed at once. They should go over next week and take the resolution along with them, and arm themselves with the sentiment of the resolution, and with what personal friendship they may find - let them go over and see what Kentucky intends to do. And if there should be no disposition for peace, then shut down on them - cut off at once all trade and supplies of provisions on the part of this State.
Mr. ORR loved all Union men. But had not Kentucky refused to respond to the call of the President for men ? and had not the Governor of Kentucky refused to attend his own appointments for a conference of adjustment? and did not the telegraph inform us this morning that a party of Kentucky secessionists had made a hostile attack on parties of Union men - Indianians and Kentuckians.
Mr. JENKINSON. I want gentlemen to show their hands.
Mr. Speaker ALLEN (Mr. Sherman in the Chair) said he was as ready to show his hand as any man, to the State of Kentucky or any other State - that it was for the defense of this Union, the support of the Constitution and the enforcement of the laws. [Applause.]
Mr. JENKINSON would let the gentleman from Knox know that the majority of Kentucky were for the Union.
Mr. Speaker ALLEN. The gentleman from Knox does not know that, nor does the gentleman from Allen himself. If the majority there were Union men, would they not find a remedy to prevent the formation of marauding bands to invade our border? If the Governor of Kentucky were loyal, would he stand by and permit the enlistment of men in Kentucky to go and fight for the the Southern Confederates? These things would not be suffered if the gentleman from Alien is correct. There is one thing with reference to these resolutions and all resolutions of this character that have been offered in this House. Why should Indiana get on her knees to Kentucky to assure them that we are friendly? Why should we go over there and beg them not to invade the State of Illinois? I apprehend, sir, that Indiana and Illinois are quite as ready to repel invasion as the State of Kentucky or the State of Tennessee are to make invasion. But, forsooth, we must go and beg them not to invade us; not to permit the Tennesseeans to come over! Who does not know that if Kentucky is loyal she will not permit them to cross her border? We have already told Kentucky and the world where we stand. We stand on the Constitution. We stand for the defense of the Union. We have responded to the call of the President of the United States for troops, the object of which is the preservation of the Union, the enforcement of the laws and the punishment of traitors. [Applause.] There is where we stand: and if Kentucky does not want to meet us on that ground, we don't want to meet Kentucky at all. Does the gentleman want to place us injudiciously in alliance with Kentucky? Does he want to place Indiana in a position of rebellion against the Union? Are we so craven as to get down on our knees and beg Kentucky not to invade us? I hope the State of Indiana is not so far gone as to do that. I noticed, with regret, an attack in a morning's paper upon Governor Morton, with reference to his correspondence with the Governor of Kentucky, charging him with agreeing to do that which he had no power to do, and guilty of a treasonable act by consenting to meet the Governor of Kentucky and talk over the exigencies of the crisis. This charge is made when it is known that Governor Morton expressly declared that he was ready to unite with the Governor of Kentucky, on any plan for the support of the Constitution, that would be honorable to the State of Indiana. As for these resolutions, Mr. Speaker, in the face of this slight of the Governor of Kentucky, we are urged to select five men, members of this legislature, to beg them not to let Tennessee troops come against us. Sir, I say let them come, if they will; and if they do come we will endeavor to give them such a reception that they will desire never to come again. I hope sir, that the resolution will be tabled at once; and if secessionists want to come in a hostile way, let them come; and let us prepare to give them a fitting reception.
Mr. SMITH, of Bartholomew, could not forbear saying a word for the Union men of Kentucky. Had not the Union men, once before this, overcome the secession efforts of Governor Magoffin and might they not do so again? He believed it would appear now soon, that a majority of the people of Kentucky are Union men. Their Legislature were to convene soon. The secession candidates for their convention, had withdrawn from the contest.
Mr. Speaker ALLEN. Were they conditional or unconditional Union men?
Mr. SMITH. They were just such Union men as he (Mr. Smith.) They would not invade the soil of any other State with a hostile purpose.
Mr. PARRETT. This Legislature had passed conciliatory resolutions, and they had been scoffed at in Kentucky. They had received no other attention at their hands, and he did not feel like going any further in that direction. There was one of the Southern States that would stay in the Union why? Because the United States troops are about them, and they are compelled to be Union men at the cannon's mouth,and that was the way now to make Union men of all of them.
He called attention to an article in the Sentinel of this morning, making a stab at the efforts of this Legislature to support the Union. [He read the second paragraph of the Sentinel's leader, May 3d, and objected to the spirit of the whole of the article.]
Mr. STOTSENBERG. What particular fault does the gentleman find with the article?
Mr. PARRETT. The whole spirit of the article but illy disguises its opposition to Mr. Lincoln's policy to put down rebellion, and the propositions to aid him before this General Assembly. It says war is expensive.
Mr. STOTSENBERG. If that is objectionable, what would be the same kind of financial page: 66[View Page 66] calculation made on this floor? Would that be opposition to the Government?
Mr.PARRETT. Not by a jug full. [Laughter.]
Mr. STOTSENBERG. What's the difference?
Mr. PARRETT. I call the gentleman's attention to this sentence: "And this is only a beginning of the cost, if it is the policy of the Administration to prosecute a war of aggression and subjugation upon the South." What is the object of this?
Mr. HEFFREN. Down the column is an article from the New York Tribune worse than that.
Mr. PARRETT. It means that, unless we abandon this resistance and submit to traitors, the people will have to pay oppressive taxes. That is what it means. It is the spirit in which the article was written that I look at. I do not care what the Tribune has said.
Mr. DOBBINS. The resolution is before the House, and not the Sentinel. I suppose we ought to expect newspapers to say what they please about our actions.
Mr.PARRETT. Yes. What he said was, that there should be no more temporizing. If our home men will support the invaders from the South, we will say what we please about them here.
Mr. GRESHAM. Two months ago he was called a sort of a submissionist, but there were times when submission would not answer. We knew well enough what would be the result of the proposed mission to Kentucky. Our only policy now was to maintain the Government vigorously. War was inevitable. The slave States would all go out. Compromise was out of the question. Every effort in that direction on our part would be credited only to our fears. It would not look well, when war is made on the Federal Government, for us here to make overtures of peace. No. Let us maintain the Government. Let us make this war terrible to those who have invoked it, and so make it profitable as a lesson to all. He showed the sheer folly of the assumed neutrality of the State of Kentucky. It was a sort of quasi partnership with the Jeff. Davis concern. The soil of Kentucky was no better than that of Indiana, and nothing in the power of any loyal State to offer, should be withheld or denied for the support of the Government of the United State and the enforcement of the laws. The only course is to go on and execute every order and enforce every decree of the General Government. He had friends and interests in Kentucky, but he was not going to get down on his knees before them and beg that he might live.
(A message from the Governor, by Mr. Holloway, his private secretary, was here announced transmitting a communication from the directors of the Northern Prison.)
Mr. DOBBINS considered it unnecessary to act on the resolution. The best way to rebuke treason and put down rebellion, was to present an unbroken front for the support and maintenance of the Constitution and the Union. All that is necessary to be done here was indicated in the joint resolution that came from the Senate the other day. He deprecated all notice here of the discussions in the newspapers, and defended the freedom of speech and the press. He referred to the treasonable correspondence between Jeff. Davis and one of his constituents, the discovery of which resulted in sending the individual out of the State.
Mr. JENKINSON agreed with the gentleman from Knox in one matter - he regretted with him the attack of the Sentinel upon the course of Governor Morton. He had heard no valid reasoning against the peace embassy he had proposed to Frankfort. In opposition to the declaration, that the time for compromise was past, he insisted that the olive branch should always go with the sword. He deprecated everything that looked like striking the Union men of Kentucky, struggling patrioticly against the Amalekites! He had offered the resolution as an American citizen, not as a partizan.
Mr. VEATCH thought the gentleman from Allen was mistaken as to the effect it will produce. They will attribute it to the cowardice of the white-livered North. If the Union men in Kentucky are able, they would overcome the secessionists; but if not, could the gentleman suppose that his proposition could be received favorably by the dominant secessionists? He referred to the concession of the honorable Archie Dixon, in his late Union speech at Louisville, telling Kentucky that while she remains in the Union, the North will not invade her; and meanwhile, she can send as many troops as she will to take part with the Confederates. The mission proposed would be repelled with scorn. The idea that the General Government has no right to march troops across a State is a heresy near akin to treason. Who talks about invading Kentucky? They know we don't intend to do it. But the laws must be respected and enforced, and the forces of the Government of the United States must be victorious wherever a flag can wave. If Kentucky, if Baltimore stand in the way of the supremacy of the Government, they must be leveled. He regarded the Sentinel's reference to the cost of the war, and characterizing it as a war of aggression, as an error of judgment, &c.
Mr. HEFFREN read an extract from the New York Tribune, in the same paper, characterizing the present as a "war of subjugation," and asked Mr. Veatch if he endorsed it.
Mr. VEATCH deprecated war, but a prostrate government was worse. He was willing to reduce them by all means to the necessity of returning to loyalty. If it became necessary to throw a wall around them, and deprive them of food, so that starvation ensue, it was a necessity of government,to result in the public good. "Necessity knows no law." Could we send food and arms for Unionists, and bullets for traitors? No, they must suffer in the mass. Subjugation? "We could not in these times use plain words without a disingenuous interpretation. He meant to subjugate every man in rebellion against the Government. When the rebels lay down their arms as States, then let the State proceed in the exercise of all its constitutional functions.
Mr. HOLCOMB. It was plain that the resolu- page: 67[View Page 67] tion could not pass, and as time was precious, he would move the previous question.
There was a second, and under the force of the demand, the resolutions were referred to the Select Committee of Five - yeas 58, nays 31.
SIX REGIMENT BILL.
On motion of Mr. HEFFREN, the six regiment bill, [S. 1] with pending amendments from the Military Committee, was taken up and considered on the second reading.
Mr. GRESHAM said: Since the action on this bill the President had made a requisition on the Governor of the State of Indiana for six regiments more, to serve three years, and therefore he wanted the sense of the House on the following:
Resolved, That said bill be recommitted to the Committee on Military Affairs, with instructions to report the same back to the House with amendments, providing for raising live regiments to serve for twelve months, for the defense of the State of Indiana.
He wanted the sense of the House on this question, whether we will raise a force of our own, and put it on pay - to be kept within our own borders.
Mr. Speaker ALLEN preferred the consideration of this bill in its present shape. It was impossible for us to avoid the sacrifices and horrors of the present war Ohio, Indiana and Illinois were perhaps to be the battle-field. The troops collected here were yet unorganized and almost mutinous, and something ought to be done to relieve the Governor from the responsibility of calling them out, as well as for the purposes of defense.
Mr. FRASIER concurred in these views, and targed them upon the attention of the House. He did not fear that the people of Indiana would fail to sustain any action here which is necessary to place the State in her proper position in the present national emergency. His position was, that if this thing required $10,000,000, he would be ready to vote it. What were dollars against the security, the interests and honor of our country and her flag.
Mr. GRESHAM now withdrew his resolution.
The bill and proposed amendments reported from the Committee on Military Affairs were read by the Clerk.
Mr. FISHER moved that the House refuse to concur in the proposition to raise a regiment of cavalry.
Mr. STOTSENBERG inquired as to the probable cost of carrying out the bill.
Mr. FISHER. He had called upon a gentleman who was amply competent to make the estimate, but had not yet got his estimate. It was certain, if the President's second requisition was not already made, it would be made in less than twenty days. The keeping of troops for home defense was not the only question. If these troops were not called for in sixty days, it would be all the better for them in the way of discipline.
In the name of humanity, should we not be willing to bear the necessary expense of drill to qualify them to meet the emergency? Where was the wisdom or the economy of sending men to battle with wooden swords and corn-stalk muskets? The bill provided that this cavalry regiment should not be mounted. This was like going to war without weapons. It was impossible to drill cavalry without horses.
Mr. KNOWLTON and Mr. HEFFREN said they could be instructed in cavalry tactics without horse.
Mr. FISHER had been reliably informed that the estimates at Washington of the expense of subsisting troops were one million a year for each regiment of infantry, and a million and a half for a regiment of cavalry. He insisted upon drill. Our troops would be called into the United States service in less than 60 days.
Mr. PROSSER spoke in favor of retaining the cavalry clause, and the necessity of the presence of cavalry on our Southern border. If we organize for defense or offense, let us have those cavalry and artillery organizations which will be efficient to the field. Let us not leave ourselves exposed to the forays of horsemen, but let horse meet horse. The 6th section should provide for the regiment going into the service of ''the State" as well as the General Government
Mr. GRESHAM desired immediate action.
Mr STOTSENBERG. Were these troops intended for State service until called for by the General Government? Had not the President called for six regiments more? and could not the men at Camp Morton be accepted under that call?
Mr. HEFFREN. If they choose. He understood that this was a war of common defense. These six regiments were to be transferred to the General Government when called for. The cavalry were enlisted for and during the war. We must have cavalry. What would become of infantry against a flying force of artillery and horse? This battle, as the gentleman from Knox (Mr. Speaker Allen) had observed, was to be fought on these plains of ours, and we expect to stand here and receive the aid of the North. What could be done with 75,000 infantry? You might as well talk about knocking in the walls of Gibralter with your fist, as to think of defending the Southern border of those States north of the Ohio river with infantry alone. He deprecated counting the cost, or stopping to question who is to blame, but exhorted all to stand together as patriots and brothers in the common defense.
Mr. CRAIN. It seemed to him that the bill was to organize these regiments and hold them under drill for the service of the United States. Now we have passed a bill for the formation of infantry and cavalry indefinitely, for home defense. The way to protect the border was to organize under that militia bill. The southern border and all the people must prepare on their own hook. And if there should not be men enough on the border for the purposes of defense,the Center and North must go down and help them.
Mr. PROSSER. How could we organize without guns? But if we had a regiment of horse we could be readily equipped as cavalry. In the east the Government has abundance of cavalry equipments out of use
Mr. CRAIN referred to the bills for $500,000 worth of arms, and for sending 5,000 stand of arms to the southern border, and repeated the necessity for home organization in every quarter, and our duty to put infantry under drill. He would not cut off the cavalry if the General Gov-regiment should not be mounted. This was like eminent should call for it.
page: 68[View Page 68]Mr. KNOWLTON. The Governor had tendered a regiment of cavalry.
Mr. GRAIN considered the place for this cavalry was in the southern counties, where he understood they were now organizing.
Mr. HOLCOMB demanded the previous question, and under its operation, the main question, viz: Shall the cavalry clause in the amendments be stricken out? was decided in the negative - yeas 29, nays 56.
Mr. McLEAN moved to concur in the amendments of the committee, with the following amendment:
Amend by striking out from the first section the words: "the Governor be authorized to call into the active service of the State," and inserting in lieu these words: "the Governor be authorized and empowered, in his discretion whenever the exigencies of the country may require, in order to provide for a more perfect defense, to call into the actual service," &c.
Here the House took a recess till two o'clock.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. Stotsenberg's execution stay bill [23] and his real estate redemption bill [29,] Mr. Williams' appraisement relief bill [27] were severally read the second time and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary; and Mr. Kendrick's Lunatic Asylum bill was ordered to be engrossed.
Mr. HOLCOMB, from the select committee thereon, reported on the order of enlistment and acceptance of the several companies now in camp, as they were accepted by telegraph by the Adjutant General.
On motion by Mr. BINGHAM, it was made the special order for to-morrow at ten o'clock.
SIX REGIMENT BILL.
The House resumed the six regiment bill.
Mr. Speaker ALLEN, (Mr. Nebeker in the chair,) directed a few words to the amendment of Mr. McLean. The amendment vests in the Governor a discretionary power. The time to repel invasion was on us. He was opposed, at such a time, to devolving on the Governor any responsibility properly devolving on the General Assembly. He did not want to shield himself behind the act of the Governor. It was known that there were organized armed bands in every town in Kentucky on our Southern border. There was a gentleman on this floor who had a letter informing him that this marauding process had already been commenced in the town of Mount Vernon; though there was on the same night about as much mischief done on the opposite side of the river. A Kentucky agent was now in the South after arms, and was to receive 25,000 stand from Louisiana and 10,000 from Mississippi. The time then had fully come for us to prepare to repel invasion, and so, it may be, prevent invasion by the preparation for it. He hoped the amendment would not prevail.
On motion of Mr. DOBBINS, the amendment was laid on the table, and the question recurred on concurring in the amendments of the committee to the first section of the bill.
Mr. STOTSENBERG demanded the previous question, and, under its operation, the committee's amendment for "seven" regiments instead of "six" was rejected. The amendment making the term of enlistment "three" years instead of "one" was adopted. The next amendment of the committee authorizing a regiment of cavalry was rejected. The amendment of the committee to the first section, giving preference to companies from counties which have not furnished troops, was also adopted.
The amendment for one Brigadier General was adopted.
The amendment giving commissioned officers the pay of their grade the same as officers in the service of the United States was rejected full debate. The bill allows three-quarters pay.
The 5th section being under consideration -
Mr. FERGUSON made an ineffectual motion to insert "no pay" instead of "half pay," as the bill provides.
The 6th section being under consideration -
Mr. FRASIER could not see how cavalry could be trained without horses. He remembered the famous saying that the spurs of cavalry were more important that their swords. How could they drill without being mounted? He was unable to see any good purpose to be accomplished by calling out an unmounted regiment of horse. He was unwilling by any act of his to expose our recruits to be called into the field to be slaughtered.
Mr. EDSON proposed to amend the committee's amendment by striking out all in the 6th section after the word "equipped," viz:
The cavalry shall be enlisted for and during the war, unless sooner discharged, and shall be selected from those cavalry companies which have been tendered as such for the war, in the order in which their services have been offered.
He spoke at length against the preference to those who had tendered services. There were cavalry companies formed and forming in the border counties, which this provision would cut out entirely. They furnished their own horses. This day he had a letter from his county reporting lawless attacks in the night by robbers from Kentucky, upon defenseless parties for the purpose of plunder and murder, at three or four points in the same night. Here was a necessity for a cavalry organization already upon us.
The amendment was adopted - affirmative 40, negative 29.
Mr. HEFFREN now moved that the bill and pending amendments be indefinitely postponed.
The motion was rejected - affirmative 25, negative 45.
Mr. FISHER. When the amendments to the first section of the bill were under consideration I moved to strike out that which relates to a caralry regiment. I think now that would be an improvement to the bill. But the House has expressed itself in favor of a regiment of cavalry, and it ill-becomes me to oppose it now. I must be content and acquiesce in the judgment of the House. And I am sorry to see gentlemen, the friends of a cavalry regiment, so much disturbed on account of the amendment to the 6th section as to move the indefinite postponement of the bill. They would see, on reflection, that they have carried the thing a little to far. He wanted to see an accommodation between the friends and opposers of cavalry here - both parties to yield something.
Mr. HEFFREN did not suppose that any man
