The daily union. [volume], March 04, 1848, Image 1

About The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
? - .
?>.T.D *???. . A. IT1IUH ^ T..D..C?f?. }$
THOMAS RITCHIE & JOHN P. HE1M. /I I |a1 [|JL /*l I [f^f''*S|f |^1*W J ff^T/^|r 1*. ? .* fn??U k. ~ **. uta?. *
- s&toK p II till lulllm. ssssass |.
DAlUi per year, $10 00 V J J \w>jr itou of Coof Mi, tod ienT-vMUf daHn| t N?MML
ItMl'WUKiY, (published tn-weekly dmmf the session ___________..____^_ SubMlflfOlDI fOf prflOdlMf (blB t JUrvflltlIQNtvod MIHW J
ol i otifr?M) - - - d U) ' 1 ' ' ? ? ????? i ??????? t?ro|Kjitjoii?dte tkntbove nnouad rttos '
WHHBMf : "" VOLUMK III. rn LIBERTY, THE UNION, AND TI1E CONSTITUTION." N I'MBKH -zim. 'M'll'h-TVi**.* SS^lk-JS^^fc
*+**mw?^< ?- at;:i smbse?&S*? SSs!*-*. * w -*
Fits copies of the DAILY, for 00 in* m rite DAILY subscribers, with $M> eucleeed, or ftre FKMIriMC?p?*?oJUi?8tMl
WtJuKLy, ,TT, ? . __ ? wtKKLV ab*rrfl??n. with %M antl??*4: Of eKlCltl?Y I- I
2?3?St;^,..:::::: ':: . CITY OF WASHINGTON, SATURDAY NIGHT, MARCH 4, 1848. :srJSSBrt?SBri?Sr~"-.T?n
ci?pie? o(th? 001 (J? Tm CmiiMMu ImMM ?S H taMH 1?*i #? . ?
CONGRESSIONAL
SHKKCU Of Mr. HIIKTI,
ov South Carolina.
Iii llit House of Representatives of the United Slates, lehriuiry
1, 1S-1S ?-On the reference of the President's
Message.
Mr. Chairman : A constitution*! fallacy hue been the
prolific source of half the complaints, and more than half
the si>eeches, made bv our friends on the other side of
this Hall. Before Congress met, it was promulged by
the great leader of the whig |?irtyat Lexington ; and since
Congress met?everyday?yesterday?to-day, this fallacy
has neen reiterated witn a long train of erroneous inferences.
That fallacy is, that Congress is, under the
constitution, the war-nnking power. Hence it is inferred,
that the President began the war with Mexico,
and began it unconstitutionally; that Congress has a right
to prescribe, limit, and determine the ob/nrs and purport
ol the war; and that Congress ha* a right to all information
in possession of the President relating to treaties,
or the war, or its o(>erations. 1 think the principle is
false, with all it* deductions.
And in the first place it may not be unimportant, to a
correct understanding of the question involved, to determine
what is war? What w it for two nations to beat
war' In its effects, it is not confined to those engaged
in military operations. It is not with the army and nav;.
merely. War is a state of hostility and enmity between
every inan, woman, and child of one nation, with every
man, woman, and child of another nation. AU property,
as well as life, is snbjert between the hettfgerants to the
law of violence everv where?on sea or land
Now, where has the constitution of the United States
vested this great |iower?the power of placing the twenty-six
States in the Union, and the [ample inhabiting
tnem?in this condition of war ? In the sth section, let
article, it ordains that Congress shall have power "to rlectori
war" Now, the power to dec/are or begin war i*
given to Congress; and it is imparted to no other functionaries
in the government. Nothing is clearer than the
principle laid down in thp Federalist, that a power giv-vi
to one deiwrtment of the government is denied to all
others. This must be the result, tor two reason* The
constitution being a s|>eoitic. grant of powers.no department
of the government can claim a (tower not granted
and, secondly, there can be no partition of |tnwers He
tween the department* of government without it For i
there to be any paititmn "i (towers between t!.. th
departments ol a government, a power given toons de i
partrnent must be denied to the rest Now, the power!
hderlare iear is given only to Congress It i? the.efore '
a denial of this power to any other dejiartment of M..~
government.
And the reason why Congress, under the con?i ' it
was alone intrustrd with tlte powrr to V< isre >>r h?
war, is obvious As war affects ail the v
t ,e States of the Union, il is oiost pn>|wr m*' a 'he |?
pie represented in the House of ilri*wwaMii?' ? i <
the States represented in the S?t,?v shoo' - r.
whether it shall exist In a matter in whieh m< '
lives of all, and the projwity of a, ' > <t.?
is concerned, the voice of ai! should letaru ... S ...
ever poor his legal reputation, who would hare risked it
by libelling her for confiscation ? Even if the subsequent
battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma
bad been fought before Congress had declared war?
neither these, nor a dozen such battles, would put
the United Slates in a state of war with Mexico,
whose constitution, like that of the United States,
empowers their Congress alone to declare or begin
war. Sir, this collision of arms on the Rio Grande
was not the beginning of the war with Mexico. After
it occurred, the President informed Congress of its occurrence;
and Congress, by the act of May, 184t5, declared
war against Mexico, bv declaring its existence.
After this act, prizes at sea could he seized, the lives or
Mexicans were liable to be taken, and their property
confiscated, according to the laws of war. Had the
President of the United States, instead of submitting the
collision of arms to Congress, for Congress to determine
whether the Union should be placed in a condiiinn r>f
war with Mexico, arrogated to himself the power to declare
or begin war, and, by a nroclamation, or in any
other mode, presumed to usurp the power of Congress in
'bis high function of government?impeachment and
death would have been nis desert, and, 1 doubt not, hi?
'ate He attempted no such treasonable usurpation ; and
neither began, nor attempted to begin, the war.
Having taken one unconstitutional position, in failing
to give its full and proper meaning to the clause in the
constitution giving the power to Congress to declare war.
our friends on the other side turn round and push it far
Wrond its meaning, and contend that Congress is not
only the wir-iUclarmfz, but the war-making power.
The slightest reflection must show that there is a vast
difference between dtdaring and mating war. The one
puts a country in a utate of war, the other corulurti it
The one may he a legislative?the other is eminently an
executive function Manv may, and ought to he in a republic,
consulted in the one?the other, requiring unity,
energy, and secrecy in action, may be efficient only under
nnr friend* on the other >i<le .'??? it, . , ''
say that the President i.m ? ? <.n ? - ?i, .,
in the war now e*i>'oig >? h M- i
abusing the constitute .?.! nr.*
an>1 call the mere fighting of
ani then argue that a* the .
of the President, thereto* r th< I' - <
Nr, the mere collision of ar?. >
on land or sew, with or ? ". m
dent, is not war. For
would follow. Not th. i >
Ury coininaniler la our ? am ?
Union into a war, ? >! *lion'and
power, the y * , a,
be the mere t.sds nia.itin <
With or without fa iwith
a few r?' w *
whole Union fa! ? ? ? .mm
they "rele the ? h
far worne for th'I- ,. > # t|H
power a? it ni> w
hand* of kings >--> ?
which ha? > oi. M
nations. wm at ? *. * I
nhllit) to one i * h M
Statea baa intrude I
all the peopir. ?.. ? the
Union ibm a < ? ^
It ia very strain* W
tlemen ha?e < * nan ? ?
toaatitutin to i?e> t n.
with other nati<MB> n > >. ? .
of theee collision* wa? ? <
against the ron*titutio< hot ?., : .
will they nay of the Coil > >n . .
ard and the Cliesai*?ke A i,* '
oline the other <i?> Were r,. ,~
States, by these roir.s oii* i. .. > ? ? -> a .,
will they say of tlie lanoiori?' ?< - - .
between the L'tlited Slates .i 1 1 .
last century ' After France bad ! i_ y?4 > . .?i? i ?.i .
aierce, and killed and imprisoned Many <m n? ?ai?a. I
Uongros authorized the Preselent of tin I " i> I * \ > t<
issue lettersof mar jue and reprisalag.i n?t Ft nr. wr?.| to
raise a large army for our defence Many hi .oh battle,
at sea was the conserjuenre. in which we r< nonerrd an I
captured many of her ships of war. and upvt ard? of thirtv
ol her privateers. Was this war' The eentlemen on
the other aide, almost to a man. sav no Why? Heeauae
Congress had not formally declared war against France
Now, as the inode of declaring war is left entirely at
the discretion of Congress, it is by no means clear
that the authorizing and directing hostilities by Congress
is not as distinct a method of declaring war
any other. They say, however, that it is not; and
mat no war existed with France. They say tins, by a
bill for which they voted the last session of Congress, and
1 presume will vote for at this, (early reported from the
Committee of Foreign Affairs for the action of Congress,)
providing for payment to American citizens for French
spoliations prior to the time of these authorized hostilities
by Congress. If war existed then, it is clear these
claims have no merit. A war extinguishes all claims
between nations or their citizens ; and can only be revived,
by treaty stipulations. No such stipulations were
tnade in closing our differences with France, either for
France to pay them, or for us to pay them. The only
ground, therefore, on which these claims, amounting to
some fifteen millions of dollars, can rest, is, that there
was no war with France. There were only collisions
of arms. Now, I ask these gentlemen?thev themselves
being the judges?if all these battles with France, under
the sanction of Congress, the tear-declaring power, did
not put the United States into a state of war, why should
a little tight on the Rio Grande, between a few Mexicans
and a captain of dragoons, in which a half a dozen men
were killed or wounded, plunge us at once into a state
of war ! Suppose, al ter Capt. Thornton had been taken
prisoner hy the Mexicans, some time had elapsed?sufficient
for .an American cruiser in the gulf to have heard
of this event, and to have seized anil brought into one
of our ports a Mexican ship as a prize?would our courts
of admiralty have condemned her .' Would any lawyer
have been found in any i>ort of the United States, how
the direction of a single head. The fratners of the cons'itutjnn
were not ignorant or inattentive to these distinctions;
and, accordingly, clearly developed them in
their debate* on the constitution. 1 hold 111 tny hand Mr.
Madison's Debates in the Convention which made and
adopted it; and it appears that, as the constitution was
reported by the select committee to the convention, it
gave thejiower to Congress to "make war." Mr. Madison
and Mr. Gerry moved to mseit "declare," striking out
the word "make." Mr. Sherman said, make is better
than dec/are, the latter narrowing the power too much
Mr. Gerry argued, that if the clause remained as it was,
giving Congress the power to "make war," the power to
declare tcur would he in the Executive. Mr. Mason ar- 1
lined to the. same effect?against giving the power of de-1
daring war to the Executive, fhe argument of these I
two latter gentlemen clearly implies, that all executive |
[lower by the constitution being vested in the President,
all jiower over war, not expressly taken from him, would 1
remain with him. On the motion to insert "declare" in ,
the [dace of "make," it was agreed to. Connecticut first
voted against the alteration; but, "on the remark of Mr. i
Killir. that make war irinrht lie unHoi-afr,.,! ? a I
which wan an executive function, Mr. Ellsworth gavel
up his objection, and the vote was changed to aye "
Here, then, it WW proposed and inserted in the con-.Ii
tution, to give to Congress the |Kiwer to make war. After
debate, tire word "make" in stricken out, and the word
"declare" is inserted, with the clear intention of giving
to Congress no power to make or conduct war, but leaving
this "executive function" entirely with the President.
This ought to settle the question, if the intention
ul ilimn who mauie the constitution ia ui any authority.
Rut, whilst contending that Congress has not the warmaking
power under the constitution, let me not he understood
as denying that Congress may control war. Congress
is omnipotent ovet the supplies. We may refuse I
to vote a dollar for the support or continuance of a war; :
or we may, in granting lhe supplies, put any limitations I
or conditions we p. ease on their us*- or application by the
F.xecutive This House, where all supply bills, by the .
constitution, mast originate, may refuse to |m?* them;
and thus, by it. action alone, put an end to war, so far j
as a want of money can end it The Senate may
also, by rejecting the supply bills, Inrre the same result
on the Executive 1 slan t on the ground oc- |
cupied by the republican putty m I7MI, in the discus- j
? on ot s treaty If, to enforce a treaty, or to carry ;
ui any other fnn< lion of government, money is required
I us *r gunit it. >. not, at our discretion . or we mav
fmnt il on any corwittion* we think yrojirr to (irewnhr
''it Iriemla on the other ?iir, who litvr a majority of
hi* hi'u v.-, c *n, therefore, atop the ey iMing w ar with
\|e*,< t at any tirae they pl-aa , by daclaring their deterii.ua'
?u lo i' i 'he !, . ice for the 1'reauient, I impp
iir. ?l not rtart'y mi'ie the Ko'iian'e definition of a
rn h nu ?* whocan ?opp.ift an umy Or tin y may
pan* ike eapy 1 wtih th* (ualtan that they ?hali l>e i
? a a* liot'pi liiit) Mexico to thie '
H .X* ia* kkei alike would he hound
f,, ,i.,n* o,e i >nl a . I withdraw <tur troopa, or
i i lha* on . lenfalt) through
*f, ? *,* ija ? it! I .. r%* u? riaceaaarx
a ana * < ?atrol i> uuirntte.
, altV - .? .. the I'rr-i
atw "Wh <ha m* ana? Mrww< put hi? beyond re- >
*p * ' t ,r rtrroMI of hia '
m y of TTi|warh//y?
" i renrieanee
r # ti >1 -.Hi ri.i
* iud lux*i
WW ' " ' 'tie reoo'ntion,
l'? I'Ni hail un- i
pt' ? a Mey.ro, yet lie
'4> - ??v a rr.it extraordi%*>
nammtt *mi . ?i it triumph
tti (nit
f )i>? rrwilu?
,,'ei falne
- , -? *i - to an im $k
%. -*41 wM** a|?. iti th- I num. the
rKwh^J0mtfi' MP ka ')>r immediate
t*jr pm (P? ? i in? they have
# *.). '<? > n aenl. hold it iii
* #mi -i the Senate'
a* ?|H' n ? e en > < netlor*. iii the .
.... ??<e * ,*> , an t Ihe constitution
? . ha, t'u . will not roil- i
! ,taint or fall, under
p. hi aWani"H** ' a'"' '' ? r ro mtry Shall we
. .. - v in nay not perform
? *?> would tie un
( ? .,. in.I but little short
;? . , i,| honor. I m> it
. k >w me intimately,
t? ? . ii >t m ule with the
i j nut to an argument?
-? !.' IS? ,.!? k.t i unconstitutionally
< * <* - .I ; 11 ii.* nvivel hi? impeachment.
i .ml. in arguing that the
> i?' luti'i nlly begin the war, I am
? * 'fie iMitution, hut my own inteit
>' ve ni tin jmsijiIp?| wit* delinquent
ii|? k h the President, or he did
- . .ii br/in the war. I cannot e?fa|ie?
> ! i.i Mtl'unjr(<4ctnmi(n?tlimdileinma.
h.i let u.? limit that tin- irir-motinif |iower is in
I ll ise vt ho atfirui lli.tt it is in (' ingress, sneak
I it .is a pow. r, independent nt the l'resident, by winch
lir w in \tt controlled ,\(iw, what can Congress uo in
li'jn oilrnt of toe ('resident ? Il ha* legislative powers; j
hut all these powers are carried into effect by hills or joint'
resolution* passed by both houses of Congress. 1 nese I
tulIs or resolutions, after passing both houses of Con-j
gress, must be submitted to the President, and be concur- i
red in by him. before they berome laws. So, after all, if I
this uxir-mtiktnff power is in Congress, it ran onlv be ex- I
ereined by the concurrence of the President. He may |
veto ?and veto absolutely, as parties now exist?all the I
war-making of Congress. The supposition, then, that
Congress may do anything concerning the war, or controlling
the President by any independent action of its !
own, is a mere delusion. But pass over this difficulty, j
and concede to Congress the absolute power of passing j
laws in pursuance of its war-making powers, prescribing
and ordaining the purposes and objects of the war
What would this be, but making Congress, in the first
pbice, the commander-in-chief of the army and navy of
the United States; and, in the second place, vesting it'
with the treaty-making power.
Sir, if Congress has the power of making or conduct- !
ing war, it must command the instruments by which war I
is alone made or conducted. It is hardly good sense, i
much less geod statesmanship, to contend that Congress
is the war-making [tower under the constitution, and can !
determine and prescribe the objects and purposes of war,
and yet can exert no control over the army and navy, by
which only it is waged. For, if Congress has not this
control, then the army and navy mav go on fighting, invading,
and conquering, despite these objects and purnoses
ordained by Congress; and thus defeat them entirely.
For instance, Congress dec.laros and prescribe? that <
the object and purpose of the war with Mexico shall he i
solely defensive?to defend our frontier on the Nueces !
from Mexican invasion. It is notorious that this, in the ;
opinion of many gentlemen on the other side of the
House, should be the sole purpose and object of the war.
Can the army leave defensive, and assume aggressive
operations? Can it be marched, after all danger of invasion
of our frontier is removed, into the heart of Mexico
?until our eagles fly over her vanquished capital ? If so,
then the object and purpose declared by Congress is mere
waste-naper. The command of the army and navy necessarily
becomes vested in Congress, if it has the warmaking
power, under the constitution; and, by virtue
of this newer, can limit and oresrribe the obiects and I
purposes of war. Even, however, if Congress had I
the power of commanding the army and navy in j
war, it would avail hqj little to obtain the objects
and purjtoses they may declare, unless they make
another stride over the constitution, arid seize also the
treaty-making power. For, after all the manoeuvring 1
of the army anil navy, the objects and purposes of war
are not finally obtained by their operations. The treaty* j
making power must finally settle differences between ua- i
tions, and realize the object* and purposes for which war
is waged. II this power is in other nands than those of
Congress, the ob|ects and purposes they have put forth
may be entirely defeated; and thus all the war-making J
of Congress, armed with acts of legislation, and the army j
and navy to boot, may be vanity and less than vanity.
To be anything, this pretension must carry with it the !
treaty-making power, and vest it in Congress. To test i
these views: suppose Congress should declare, by an act, j
that the object and purpose of the war with Mexico shall I
be to establish the Rio Grande as our boundary, and that
no territory beyond that river shall he acquired by the )
war ; is the treaty-making power bound by this declara- j
tion ? Should a treaty be concluded by the President,
with Mexico, and be ratified by the .Senate, acquiring the 1
California*, will it he the supreme law of the land > If it |
. .luUnilnn nf Civi<rrp?* is without efficarv. and I
ihe object* ami purpose* they have declared must remain
on record a mere mockery of herniation. If it
e not, then Conscress override* and absorbs the treatymaking
power. It can prescribe all terms to all trea
ties." Thin is not the constitution as the (miners
of this great instrument made and transmitted it to
their posterity. They were wise men, who were made
wise liy the stern circumstances in which they weie
placed ; and learned the great principles oi rittht government,
with their lives and fortunes staked on every lesson.
They were perfectly aware that the war-making
|K>wer, and the treaty-making power, must he vested in
the same hands. These are eminently executive powers,
and are hound as intimately together, as means to an
end. They therefore intrusted them to the same high
functionary in whom they vested "the e xecutive" power?
the President of the United States. It was not consistent
with their views of free government to place over the
Union a French constituent assembly, with the wardeclaring,
the war-making, war-continuing, and warending
powers?all vested in one vast legislative body,
i whose infernal energy in destroying others seemed to he
only equalled by their caparity to destroy themselves.
| Our fathers vested the war-declaring or war-beginning
power hi Congress?the war-making power in the President?the
war-continuing power in Congress (by the
supplies) and the President?and the vmr-entliiig, or
' peace making power, in the President and the Senate;
I although, by the supplies, Congress may incidentally,
also, force the termination of war.
Mr. Chairman, I come to another false inference I
noticed, from the false principle?that Congress is the
war-muting power. congress netng me wor-imiKiiifr
power, it is contended iliat the President of the United
Stairs had no constitutional right, without the direction
of Congress, to order our troops from Corpus Christi to
the Kio Grande. This order, they argue, produced the
collision of arms between us and Mexico, which, they
falsely assert, was war. Congress being the war-making
power, and this war occurring without the order of Congress,
therefore the war was unconstitutionally begun,
and begun by the President
Now, sir, it is not my purpose to defend the President,
in this or any other course of policy he has pursued.
My object is far higher and nobler. It is to vindicate
the constitution of the United iStates, whose integrity is
worth a hundred Mexican wars. Whether the removal
of the troops from Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande was
wise <>r impolitic, is not the question. The question is?
forced on us hy the solemn decision of this House?was
it unconstitutional '
To determine thiH question, it amiears to me, that a very
lew facts only need be placed nefore the mind. 1. It
is a lact, that the only western boundary known to Texas
-revolutionized Texas?was the Rio Grande. As a department
of Mexico, the Nueces was her boundary; but
'lie only law passed by her, as an independent State, demonic
her boundaries, declared the Rio Grande to he her
western boundary 2. It is a truth, that she stipulated, in
her treaty with Santa Anna, (void, no doubt, because not
ratified by Mexico.) that the RioGrande was her boundaiv
i. I: is true, that, in the armistice concluded with
General Woll, the commander of the Mexican army, after
the battle of San Jacinto, it was stipulated that the Mexican
troops should not come east, nor the Texas troops
w est, of the Kio Grande. 4. It is vehemently asserted,
uaiii and again, by gentlemen on the opposite side, that,
ii the rejected treaty providing for the annexation of
Texas to the Union, she stipulated that the Hio Grande
ilmuld be the boundary, and that, on this account, the
treaty w as rejected by the Senate. 5. It is also asserted,
by the gentlemen who preceded me in debate, and by the
then president of Texas, (Gen. Houston,) that, when
IY\as was finally annexed to the Union, it was secretly
understood, between the government of the United States
.on) that of Texas, that the Rio Grande was to be vindicated
as her boundary. That such a secret understanding
took place, some may Question; but it cannot be
questioned that Texas pressed its adoption.
Now, sir, look at these facts. Texas, as an independent
State, declares the Rio Grande her boundary.
>he claims it from the vanquished President of Mexico,
hi her treaty with him. She claims it from the commanding
general of Mexico in the field, by an armistice.
She claims it in her treaty of annexation with the United
states ; and, finally, insists on it when incorporated into
the Union. This is the only boundary she has ever
claimed ; and under these repeated acts of vindication,
die becomes a State of the Union. Now, to crown
miM" iiu.i.% ici u nu (Uiiit'u, niui i?i(! \ICO nail ?i
irm> on the Texas frontier, and that negotiation to obtain
an acknowledgment of any boundary to Texas had
failed?and what inore can he needed, to justify the constitutionality
of the President's conduct, in ordering our
troops to the Kin Grande
But gentlemen assert that negotiation had not failed.
They charge the President of the Unite 1 States, openly
and repeatedly, with falsehood and duplicity in his assertion,
that from information received from our minister in
Mexico, before he ordered the troops to the Rio Grande,
he had gooil reason to suppose that our minister would
not he received hy the Mexican government, and consequently
that his effort to settle by negotiation the western
boundaries of Texas would be abortive. Convicting
him, as they assert,of this one untruth, they make it the
father of more hideous falsities, and of the foulest conspiracies,
against the welfare and honor of the Union.
Sir, 1 again repeat, that it is not mv purpose to defend the
President of the United States, My business is with the
constitution. It is clear, that whether he had reason to
suppose that our minister would be rejected hy the government
of Mexico, before he ordered the troops to the
Rio Grande, constitutes a most important?probably the
most important?point in determining the constitutionality
of his course; for it was undoubtedly the understanding
of the resolutions annexing Texas to the Union, that the
western boundary of Texas should be open to negotiation.
How, then, stands the fact ?
The order directing General Taylor to march our troops
from Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande was issued on the
13th day of January. Gentlemen say that no information
was received from Mr. Slidell, our minister in Mexico,
until the 27th of the same month; consequently, that the
assertion that the order of the 13th was influenced by information
received from Mexico, is false. But theirs is
the error. The despatch from Mr. Slidell, which 1 hold
in my hand, dated the 17th day of December previous,
was received in Washington on the 12th day of January,
and was, in reality, as the President asserts, the cause of
the order of the day after. Deeming it my duty to know
the truth, 1 waited on the Secretary of State, and requested
him to show me the original despatch ; and I saw, in
his handwriting, an endorsement of the date of its recep
I,., a..,- .*( I...iuii! u-i... .1..........I.
mill me 14111 uojr in innaiiij, lorn. x lie uer.|mln il it,
amongst the documents submitted to Congress at the time
of the first outbreak with Mexico, and is three printed
pages long. Our ininister^statcs, in the most positive
terms, that he had not been acknowledged as a minister
from the United States, and details the various grounds
on which the government of Mexico had refused to receive
him; hut that he was informed by the Minister of
Foreign Relations that the question of his reception had
oeen sunmiueu 10 mo government council ior nnai ueiermination.
The substance of tho decision of the government
council i? then Kiven hy Mr. SlidelI, rejecting him
as a minister, with tho various reasons, he understands,
which were assigned for his rejection : and he says that,
as soon as he is officially informed of it, or it is proclaimed
by the government of Mexico,he will communicate it
to our government. In a postscript to the despatch, are
the following words, as gentlemen will lind by turning
to the document:
"P. S. December 18, 1815-?At the moment I was about
to close this, I obtained the dictamen of the council o! government,
published in the Siglo. I send you the paper."
This dictamen, being in a newspaper, was not sent
with the other papers submitted by the President to Congress;
but no one will charge any improper design in
omitting to communicate to Congress a paper so important
to his vindication. I have seen this dictamen of the
government-council of Mexico rejecting Mr. Slidell as
minister from the United States; and it is equally open
to the inspection of any other member of Congress. Sir.
the President of the United States and his cabinet had
this despatch and the decree before them on the 13th day
of January, when the ordsr was issued to (ien. Tavlor to
march our troops from Corpus Christi to the Rio Grande.
If they assumed that thi* decree must put an end to all
negotiations with Mexico, subsequent facts seem t>
justify their conclusion; for, within a few days af
Since 1 delivered this speech, ?letter h is appeared in the
National Intelligencer of ttie Uftih January. ISts, comm >nded
highly by the editor, from Mr. John McLean, oneol the
instlcos of the Supreme Court of the United States, in which
houses the following language r
"1 think that Congress, who unqaestionably have the
power, should put an end to the war on just and honorable
principles. Alter agreeing upon the terms on which t?
treaty should be made, they should call upon the Executive,
oy resolution, to offer a peace to Mexico upon that
basis; and, during the negotiation, hostilities should be
suspended. II the President shall refuse to do this, in the
military appropriation bills the army should ha required to
take such positions as shall carry out the views of Congress
These bills the President could not veto, and lie
vrntld be bound by their requirements. This may be done
by the House."
.Here ia a distinct affirmation that Congress ha* a tight to
command the army and dictate treaties As the veto power
was not stricken out of the constitution, as recommended
by the whig representatives in Gimgres* in 1841, it is
dithcutt to nndeiatajid why the Prosideut could not veto
"these billc."
ter it was promulged, the administration of President
Herrera, according to his late distinct declaration,
was overthrown, because it had assented to treat at
all with the United States, and a new administration rose
011 its ruins, whose principle was uncompromising hostility
towards ih? United States. Of course Mr. Slidell was
also rejected b\ this new administration, and he returned,
baffled, to the United States. It is true, therefore, that
when the troops were ordered to the Rio (irande, information
was before the President that negotiations must
fail with Mexico, ilad he no right, under the circumstances
1 have detailed, without the direction of Congress,
to order our troops?not to take possession, not to control
the authorities of Mexico, civil or military, hut molesting
no one in power, person, or property?simply to enter the
territory lying between Corpus Christi and the Rio
Grande ? Was this order unconstitutional.' If it was,
then it will he difficult to show that the President can,
under any circninstances, constitutionally order our army
anywhere, for any purjaise, within the United fltates
Hut 1 make no argument on the facts. If there is any one
who thinks that Congress (not the President) is "commander-in-chief
of tlie army and navy of the United
States"?that to Congtes.s, not the President, is intrusted
"the executive |>ower," and the duty of "repelling invasion,"
and of "seeing the laws faithfully executed"?let
him rail at the President for usurping the powers of Congress,
and unconstitutionally beginning the war with
Mexico. It would he as absurd to disnute the facts as
the reasoning* *f such a man. Let him go further?propose
an act, a military order by Congress, designating
where the army shall be placed ; and turther still?that it
shall be immoveable forever, until the House, by its
cleric or sergeant-at-arms, gives the order to march.
Mr. Chairman, the last fallacy referred to, resulting
from the false principle that Congress is the war-making
power, is, that Congress?110, this House?has the right
to all information in the possession of the Kxecutive respecting
treaties, or the war, or its operations. Upon this
ground, this House has peremptorily demanded of the
President the instructions given to Mr. Slidell in his mission
to Mexico, it is contended that it is an unconstitutional
outrage on the rights of the House for the President
to refusa to communicate these instructions.
Now, no one doubts that this House has a right to call I
for any information it pleases from the Kxecutive, understanding
that the Kxecutive has a right to reluse giving
it, if, in his opinion, incompatible with the public interest.
Such a right, if right it can be called, is a mere
right to seek and obtain information, and may be exercised
towards anyone within or without the United States.
But this cannot be what the advocates of the late call on
the President mean, or they would not have struck out
the usual discretionary clause. They must mean that
there is no discretion in the President to answer ; but that
his constitutional dutv is to obey the call; and that, if he
does not obey, he violates the constitution and the constitutional
rights of this House. They mean this, or they
mean nothing.
Let us turn to the constitution and see what are the
powers of this House, as a part only of Congress. It has
three grants of authority: 1. To judge of the elections,
qualifications, and returns of its members. 2. To expel
a member. 3. To bring impeachments. In carrying out
any of these objects, I suppose this House may compel
the attendance of witnesses and the production of information.
Was the call upon the President, for his instructions
to Mr. Slidell, to aid the House in performing its
duty with respect to either of the above grants of power ?
Certainly the House may say, we want this information,
and will not legislate without it. For this or any other
cause?on account of information received or not received
?it may re/use to vote troops or supplies to carry on the
existing war. But is it an unconstitutional, an impeach
able act, lor the President to refuse the information?
Departing from the express grants of power to this
House in the constitution, I have heard only vague and
vain declamation to support such a position. We are the
people !?the sovereignty of this Union?which the President
has virtually disobeyed and defied !! Sir, we forget,
in our towering self-exaltation, who we are. We are
not the people; but, like the President himself, elected
by the people, and intrusted with certain limited powers,
for which we are responsible. We are not the sover!
eignty of the Union ; but only one of its agencies, to obtain
a just and free government, liable to be overruled
by the Senate in all our legislation, and by this very
! President, over whom we affect to have a rightful control,
in matters belonging peculiarly to the Junctions of
I the Executive.
But, although the House may have no right to demand
information of the Executive, may not Congress do it?
I Congress, the war-making power?in the matter of war
ioperations! !
; lhe only clause in the constitution having the least
I bearing on this pretension, is that which requires the
j President, "from time to time, to give to the Congress
information of the state of the Union, and recommend
such measures as he shall judjje necessary." Here is a
duty, undoubtedly, which the President performs in his
annual messages. The time, mode, and manner ?f performing
it, are clearlv within his discretion. Like the
duty of nominating officers, or appointing ambassadors,
he is responsible, and impeachable for delinquency. But
is information concerning Mr. Slidell's instructions?a
single circumstance of detail?the information of the
stale of the Union, which the President is bound to communicate
to Congress? And if it is, is it communicable
at the instance of Congrtss 1 If so, then the President
may wait until lie is asked of Congress. It is a duty to
be exercised in common with Congress, which requires,
at their discretion, the information to be submitted to them
from time to time. If Congress fails to ask this information,
the President cannot be culpable for not imparting
it; consequently he is not impeachable for not discharging
this duty. Sir, he is impeachable if he fails to discharge
this duty; because to give information to the
Congress from tune to time of the state of the Union is
his duty, and his duty only.
But admit that Congress may demand the information
required?of Mr. Slidell's instructions?have they done
it ? And if they did do it, what could they do, but go to
the President and ask his assent to the law which demands
it? If Congress, consisting of the House and the
Senate, would have to submit to this ooursc to obtain
this information, does it not show that this House, acting
separately, cannot command it? Even in the case
of a treaty, the Senate itself?a part of the treaty-making
power?cannot command all information from the Executive.
Certainly, it must be a very extraordinary case
which would justify the President in keeping anything
relating to a treaty from the Senate, whilst asking their
conlirmation. But such a case might exist. Suppose a
treaty made, highly advantageous to the country, by the
use of the secret service fund annually placed at the disposition
of the Executive?a fund which the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Adams] has said on this floor
he used when President, and no one but his successor
knew how he used it?would the President he bound to
disclose to the Senate the means he used to obtain the
treaty? The constitution says, he must submit the treaty
to the Senate for ratification ; but it doeH not require him
to submit the mode and manner by which it is obtained.
The Senate, may reject the treaty if they think proper,
oil the ground that iill transactions concerning it were not
submitted to them. This is their constitutional privilege.
But, on the part of the President, it is his duty to
inake treaties, and, after making them, he can submit or
withhold them from the Senate. If he withholds them,
they fail as treaties. But, in submitting them, may he
not withhold Any matter relative to them which he
deems the public interest requires ? Take the case, out
of which has arisen the claim of the House of Representatives
to information from the President. Suppose a
treaty made to-morrow with Mexico, and submitted to
thp Npnntp. anil thp Stpnalp ?hr,nht niu ths vprv rpsoln
tion this House panned, demanding of the President to
communicate to the Senate the instructions given two
years ago to Mr. Slidell in his mission to Mexico?would
the President he hound to communicate them May he
not say : " My instructions to Mr. Slidell never had any
existence. He was not received as a minister to Mexico,
and therefore had no occasion to break their neal;
and if they ever hail any existence, they have no
hearing upon the. treaty I diave sent to you for confirmation.
I therefore decline communicating them
to you." If the Senate wan not satisfied with this
answer, they could reject the treaty ; but they could
not, in mv opinion, complain that any constitutional
right of theirs wan infringed by the President in his
refusal. If the Senate, then, a part of the freo/ynuJcmp
povrr, in the case of a treaty submitted to
them, would have no right to an implicit obedience
from the President to the resolution calling for the instructions
of Mr. Slidell, how can it be the right of
this House to command him.' Take the wildest assumptions.
and it cannot he pretended that the Honse can
have higher righls of information from the President than
the Senate, when acting in its treaty-making capacity.
Mr. Chairman, I have tints endeavored to show that
(he war-making power is not in Congress. and consequently
that the President of the United States did not
unconstitutionally begin the war with Mexico; that
Congress has not a right to prescribe, limit, and determine
the objects and purposes of war | nor Km it a right
to all information in possession of the President respecting
treaties or war. In taking these positions. I know I
render myself amenable to the imputation of being a
ttortofamonarchi.it?one, as the phrase goes, 'n favor
of executive [lower, Sir, I am in favor of execu
live power in goveriuneut; and, if 1 was not, 1 would
be in favor of uo government at all i for government
cannot exist without being ojierative, and, to be o|>eialive,
must be enforced by an executive. 1 am, also,
in the government of tliese United States, in favor of
intrusting, not a part, but the whole of the executive
functions to the hands of the President of the United
States. Not a particle would 1 vest in CongVesa, anil
in the Senate I would vest onl> a co-operation with the
President in the treaty-making anil appointing powers.
Is this being too |>aitial or devoted to executive power?
Fidelity to the constitution of the United States demands
nfl ]p.?M It MVS' " Tho a-r ar,.i .Vs-.l I
| vested in a President of the United Suites." When
it sju-aiis of the legislative powers, the language is very
different: "All legislative powers herein grunted shall
be rested in a Congress of the United Slates." All the
executive functions are in the President: but Congress
has not only none but legislative (lowers, but even these
powers are limited to the specific grants. [ go further
still in favor of the executive power. 1 am in favor of
its parlici|iating in legislative functions also. Here, again,
I but stand by the constitution in upholding the presi'
dential veto on the laws of Congress. Sir, why did the
makers of the constitution thus give not only all the executive
powers to a President, but even a control over
Congress in its legislation, whilst to Congress they gave
only limited legislative powers. The answer is plain,
j Because they thought that liberty and right government
were in more danger from legislative than from executive
abuses?from Congress than from the President.
. They knew that at our stage of progress in free government,
liberty in person or property was safe from any executive
encroachments. The danger of oppression in the
Union was from another source?the tyranny of sections
or interests. These could act only through the legislative
department of the government; and they therefore
endeavored there to fix their limitations by a most careful
enumeration of special grants. The working of the
constitution has proved that, in these views, our fathers
were right All the danger to our system of government,
all the usurpations which have agitated the
Union and threatened its dissolution, have Deen from
legislative encroachments. Congress, not the President?the
statute-book, not the sword?has kept the
Union in agitation, and lashed parties into furious contention.
The alien and sedition laws, banks, protective
tariffs, internal improvement, anil slavery, have successively
risen up in Congress, subjects for usurping
powers not granted by the constitution. Our friends on
the other side of the hall, uphold the latitudinous coniitriirtinil
r?f thp PAnutitntinn hir hnon n?. irvrm
are perpetrated. They are for swelling the powers of
Congress, anil making a majority in Congress, the government
and the constitution. The reason is obvious.
The north, which leads in this policy, are the majority
in Congress. T? extend the powers of Congress, where
they are the majority, is to extend power to themselves;
and thus enable thein not only to protect themselves, but
to wield the legislation of Congress to their advantage, at
the expense of the other sections of the Union. Interest,
and the lust of jiower, both combine with them to uphold
this policy. Hence the continual tendency to grasp new
powers in Congress. Hence the opposition to the veto
|K>wer in the President, which lias controlled these
usurpations of the constitution; and hence, also,
the late pretension, of Congress being the war-making
jiower, with all its corollaries. The last time the
whigs had the ascendency in Congress, they wound up
the session of 1841 by an address to the people of the
United States, proposing to abolish the constitution of the
United States in no less than four particulars. 1
was in the contest of those days, and know what a
whig majority in Congress is, in its unscrupulous and
desjrenjte warfare on the constitution. The security of the
south is in the limitations of the constitution ; and there
can be no security for her in the ascendency of a party,
which, from the origin of the government to this day, has
carried on a perpetual war against them. If we are safe
under any control bnt our own?if we are safe under the
administration of the constitution of the United Statesit
must be in co-operation with that party which has
stood by us in so many hard-fought and hard-won battles
for the limitations of Hie constitution. The whigs,
from the very nature of their jiolicy with resjiect to the
constitution, must be the enemies of those who stand for
protection and jieace on its limitations. They must, politically,
be the enemies of the south?conscientious and
patriotic, if you please?but still enemies; the more irreconcilable
and implacable, because conscientious.
Mr. Chairman, our friends over the way denounce the
Mexican war with great bitterness. To near them, one
might suppose that tney not only have had no agency in
making it, but that, if they had the power, they would
most speedily arrest it. Tney voted for the declaration
of war by the last Congress, and voted the supplies to
carry it on. They, at the ensuing session, again voted
the supplies; and now, they are here with a majority which
can at any moment arrest the war. Why do they not arrest
it, by declaring at once their determination to refuse
the sujiplies ? If tne boast of some of them be true, they
Wf>rp nlaPPil llPrp. J? mninritv hv thn rmrvrvlw fr*r fKio uoi-f
purpose. Sir, our whig friends do not intend-^-do not
wish to stop this war. A jicace, if effected to-morrow,
would be to them very far from grateful news. They
look to the war sis the grand instrument of their success
at the next presidential election. Like proper patriots,
they suppose the predominance of the democratic party a
far greater evil than the Mexican war. Hence they are
willing that the war shall continue, at least, until they
can grasp the reins of power.
I tell you, sir, those who most deeply lament this war?
those who are daily longing for its termination, by a just
and honorable peace, are on this side of the chamber. Party
predominance is undoubtedly something to them; but the
heavy responsibilities of the war, its uncertainties and
dangers, press most on those who are identified with the
administration in the first great cause of their ascendency
to power?the annexation of Texas to the Union. They
fully understand how the benefit of this great measure
may be defeated?how territory acquired may bring us
danger, debt, the renewal of the protective policy, and
the whole end in the triumph of whig principles in
the Union. Whilst, therefore, they support the government
in the prosecution of the war, believing that consistency
and the interests and honor of the Union alike
reuuire that it should be supported, they would rejoice
to near of peace. They deprecate the war with Mexico;
hut deprecate far more that war on the constitution,
which, whilst sapping its principles, leaves it the mere
instrument of a remorseless, many-headed despotism enthroned
in Congress. The success of this war, unlike
the war with Mexico, which has brought us at least distinction
and renown, may bring us ouly infamy and dishonor;
and signalize its victories by the destruction of
the rights of the States and the liberties of the people.
Proposal! for a Loan.
Treasury Department, Feb. 26, 1848.
SEALED PROPOSALS will be received until 3 p. m.,
on the eighth of March, 1848, for live millions of dollars
of treasury notes, or so much as may be rois'iinble in
treasury notes under the act of Congress of the 28th January,
1817, payable two years after the date of such noted,
with interest at the rate ol six percent, per annum, payable
semi-annually. No bid will be received below par.
The bids should state distinctly, in all cases, the premium
odered. llids at the same rate of premium accompanied
in the written proposals, with an otfer to fund the notes at
once in the six per cent stock authorized by the said act of
28th January, 1847, w:H be preferred.
To give an opportunity to all persons to participate in the
investment of funds in these notes?which, on account ol
the privilege of funding, may hereafter be materially enhanced
in vnlue?bids will be received for the lowest denomination
ol notes authorized by the law, as well as for
higher sums.
I'he amount of the bids will he required to be paid in
sitecie in three equal instalments in all the months ol
March, April, and May, 1848.
I Till* lllf)n?V lift Villilp flit tl>A Irian ran Kn iIaruaailorl uriflt flu*
Treasurer at the Unitml Staler, the Treasurer of the mint a'
Philadelphia, orofthe branch mint in New < >, l>- ?n-?, n.-wnh
any of the assistant treasurers at Boston, New York, Charles
ton. or St. Louis. In all cases, to secure the bid, a special dopo?ite,
at any of the points above specified, with the officers
above designated, of the whole amount of the premium,
before 3 o'clock, p. m., on the 8th March, 1848, will he required.
The premium will be returned at once if the hid
i? not accepted.
MeCLINTOCK YOUNG,
Acting Secretary of the Treasury.
Feb 36?dtfkhMnr
0CJ?The daily papers in Washington, Charleston, Baltimore,
Philadelphia, New Yerk, and Boston, will copy the
above.
COMniTHKNT.?Was Msualttod to Use Jail of Talbot
county, on the 16th day of December, 1847, as s
runaway, a negro man who calls himself ALEXANDER
GREEN. He is a very bright mulatto, with straight hair,
5 levt i tnrh high, and 35 or 46 years of age. Had on, when
committed, a suit of kersey and coarse Monroe shoos?say.
Ire belongs to a gentleman in the city of Baltimore by the
name of Snyder, who lives at the Throe-Tun Tavern. "Tin
owner or owners, if any, are requested to coins forward,
pipve property, pay Charges, and take him away, or hi
will he released, as the law directs.
March ??w N. E- NICOLS, Sheriff.
= ? I
('<n?r&li liuU uid Wort*. 1 The
following is the correspondence between Generals
Scott and Worth which led to thearrestof the latter,and
the sus|>ension of the former: 1] ;
Maxtoo, November 18, 1847.
Sir : 1 learn wiib much astonishment that the pretrailintr
opinion In this army |x>tnts the imputation of "scandalous
conduct In the third, and the invocation of "the great numbers"
in the fourth paragraph of order No. #4#. printed and
issued on yesterday, to myself, atone of the ellicert alluded '
to. Although I cannot suppose those opinions to be correctly
formed, nevertheless, regarding the high source from
which such imputations flow, so seriously affecting the ,
qualities us a gentleman, the character and usefulness as * r tin
officer of him to whom they may be aimed, I feel it In- (
rtimbent on me to a>lc, as 1 now do, most respectfully, of ,
the frankness and justice of the General-in-ehief, whether, j
in any sense or degree, be condescended to apply or design- [> I
ed to have applied the epithets contained in that order to ,
myself; and, consequently, whether tire general military
opinion or sentiiiieui. in that matter has taken a right or intended
direction
I trust I shall be pardoned for pressing with urgency an
early reply to this communication. Very respectfully, Ato.
W. J. WORTH, Brevet Major Gen.
t'ornmanding First Division.
Captain Scorr, A. A. Adj Gen., Headquarters.
llKADQUARTCan OF THI AkMT,
, Mexico, November 14, 1847. *'
Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt this
morning of your communication, dated the 13th instant,
relative to general orders No. 319, and I am instructed by
the General-in-ehief to reply, "Thai the general order No.
819 was, as is pretty.elenrly expressed on its luce, meant to
npply toa letter signed Leoiiiitas, in a New Orleunsnewspaper,
and to the snrnmary of two lesser*.etwee its the Washington
Union, and copied into a Tampion paper, to the .
,.,,>i.,,,v ,.,.,t -I,........ ?r v.. m-,.
whom they tnay." ' , ; . ;
1 am, very respectfully, your most obedient servant,
H. L. SCOTT, A. A. Adj. Gen.
Brevet Major Gen. Worth, U. S. A., commanding, iSto.
Headquarters, First Division, , (
Mexico, November 14, 1847. , ( ( *"
Sir : I have hnd the honor to receive your letter in reply,
hut not in answer to mine of yesterday's date, handed in , J
this morning. The geneial order is too clearly "expressed
on its face" to admit of any doubt of its application in regard
to jiereoni. The object of my letter, as 1 endeavored
clearly to express, was to seek to know distinctly, and with
a view to further measures to protect myself, if, as I sup- ' ( <
posed, I was one of the persons referred to. Regretting the
nsoessity for intrusion, 1 am compelled again respectfully '
i,.... .... ..... ,i... ... r ..i, o u. .n : !.
simple justice, which it is hoped will not bo denied. A
1 Iikvb the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient K
servant, W. J. WORTH, J,
Bv't. Maj. Gen. commanding 1st division. ; <
Captain H. L. Scott, A. A. Adj. Gen., Headquarter*. ; *
HEADQUARTERS OP THI A RUT. ' >
Mexico, November 14, 1847. !,
Sta: The General-in-cltief desires me to reply to your ' ?'
note of this dam, by saying that he cannot be more explicit
than in his reply through tne, already given?that he ha*
nothing to do with the suspicions of others, and ha* no positive
information himself as to the authorship of the letters (
alluded to in general orders No. 349. If he had valid Infor- i,
ination on the subject, he would immediately prosecute the '
parties before a general court martial.
4,1 have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient
servant, II. L. SCOxT, A. A. Adj. Gen.
1<1 vt. Alaj. Gen. W. J. Worth, U. S. A., commanding, decHeadquarters
1st Division, A '
Mexico, November 14, 18417. . . X
Sir ; It is due to official courtesy and propriety that 1 ac- )l
knowledge your letter (No. 2) in answer to mine of thr* .? V
date ; and, in doing so, and in closing this correspondence j' si
with the headquarters of this army, I beg permission to ^ *
say, and with regret, that I have received no satisfactory ;t
answer to the lirst and rightful inquiries which I have ad- -f
drossed to the General-in-chief; but, inasmuch as 1 know
myself to be deeply aggrieved and wronged, it only remains
to go, by appeal, as I shall do, through the prescribed
channels, to trie constitutional commander-in-chief. The v
General-in-chief is pleased to say, through you, that "he V.
has nothing to do with the suspicions of diners, and that hhas
no positive information himself as UV the authorship,"
Ate. Granted. But has not the manner in which the Gen- f*
entl-in-ohief has been pleased to treat the case, establish- |n
ed?whether designed or not, is to be seen?an unequivocal ill
public sentiment upon the subject 1 There are always
enough of that peculiar and pestilential specie*, who only
exist upon the breath of authority, to eaten up the whisperings
of fancy, and infest u whole military community. I do
not design to be stifled under the miasma of such, nor
stricken down, in my advanced age, without an effort to
convince iny friends that I scorn to wear "honors not
earned." ;. ,. *
I remain, sir, your obedient servant, ,
W J. WORTH, Brevet Maj. Gen. . J .
Capt. H. L. Scott, A. A. Adj't Gen., Headquarters.
Headquarters, 1st Division op the Arxv,
Mexico, November 16, 1847.
Sir: From the arbitrary and illegal conduct?the malice yr
and gross in justice practised by the general officer commanding-in-chief
this army. Major General Winfield Scott, c
1 appeal, us is iny right and privilege, to the constitutional
commander-in-chief, the President of the United States. . I
I accuse Major General Winfield Scott of having acted in j
a manner unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, lie hat
availed him sell of his position to publish, by his authority,
to the army which he commands, and of the influence
of his station, to give the highest effect to an order, bear- '
ing date November 12, 1847, and numbered 349, (olficiul
printed copy herewith,) calculated and designed to
east odium and disgrace upon Brevet Major General , ji
Worth, to bring that geueral olHcer into disrepute with
(lie army, and to lesseu, if not destroy, his just influence
and proper authority with those officers and soldiers over
whom he is placed in command. That he has, without Inquiry
or investigation, in the said order, (published to the ji
army and to the world,) falsely charged Brevet Major General
Worth with huving written, or connived at the wriing,
a cat tain letter, published in the United States, and to
which he has beon pleased to apply the epithets of "scandalous,
malignant," See. That lie has made these state- >
incuts to the world, giving to them the sanction of his high
authority and tho influence of his position, whilst he has acknowledged
that he had no information as to the authorship
orthe letter in question; and, when respectlully and
properly addressed upon the subiect by the undersigned .*
appellant, he has declined to reply whother or not he In- ,
tended to impute lo Brevet Major General Worth eonduot
which he lui!) characterized at "scandalous, malignant," ? t
fee. He pleased to refer to corresjiondenco herewith marked
from A to E.
I do not urge present action on these accusations, because p
of the inconvenience of the service in withdrawing many
officers from their duties ; but I do humbly and respectful- ']
ly invoke the {'resident's examination into the case, and
such notice thereof and protection irom the arbitrary conduct
of said General as he may deem suitable.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient 1
servant, W. J. WORTH,
Hrevet Major General U. S. A.
To the Hon. Secretary or War, Washington.
Endorsement on the preceding letter, dated Nov. 16, 1817 .* . '
"Tins pajwr was prepared on the day of its date, but
transmission delayed in the hope, not realized, that mature
reflection would suggost an act of justice. W. J. W."
Headquarters ok the Army in Mexico,
November 26, 1847.
Sir: Your letter to me of the 24th instant, covering a
communication from you to the Secretary ot War, dated
"ight days before, professing to be an appeal against General
Orders No. S4ft, issued from this onioe, has been received,
and this morning read by the General-in-chief. ;
For the studied con tempt and disrespect towards the
Goneral-in-chief, expressed in that communication to the
Secretary of War, under the form of an appeal, I am instructed
by the General-in-chief to desire that you will immediately
consider yourself in a state of arrest, within the
nmits of this city ; and to add, that he shall, by the first opjiortunlty,
form a general court-martial for your trial on that, ,
and probably other matters.
1 have the honor to be. very respectfully, your obedient
servant, H. L. SCOTT, A. A. Adj. Gen.
Brevet Maj. Gen W. J. Worth, U. S. Army.
Charge and specification jreferrtd against Brevet Maj. Gen.
Worth of the United States Arms).
Ciiaroe.?Behaving with contempt and disrespect towards
ins commanding otlicer.
Specification.?In this, that 'he said Brevet Mai. Gen.
Worth, in a communication dated November 16, 1847, addressed
through the Acting Assistant Adjutant General at
mcwi lumt. ne unpinner* oi tue American
m Mexico, to the Secretary ol War, under the pi atext and
Torm of an appeal to the President oflJbe Un,?dl^??lro'"
i leneral Order No 349, published November IX 1W7, in
rhe name and by the command of Maj. Gen. Scott, genera - #
-chief of the said force, at the time, and still the saw
Worth'* commanding officer, the Mid Worth
the said Scott of having been. In thaisaid
by "malice'' against him, the ?atd Worth, a? ? j a
having acted in a manner unbecoming ? of
gentleman" towards him, the said Worth, in the m ^af
I i he said order. All this at the capital of Mexico,
first above written " ?
; | W1NFIKLD SCOTT. Major General. Ate
NOTICK.?'Ilia sadwaifnMl nepntfUy |tvw no.
tier, that having been associated in thapractS'e ot
. the law with the late Clement Co*. eso.. for some month* be- J
1 fore his decease, he wilt proceed with the unfinished business
m his hands, and will have therein, if if shall be tie>
cessary, the assistance of nioro experienced counsel. Tha
1 undersigned further offers his professional services to the j
public generally, ssd promises the most prompt attention J
* to whatever business he may be intrusted with. f
WALTER 8. COX, Attomey-at-Law f
Jau. 31?Stmwtw
M