Mr. JEFFERSON DAVIS said there were two positions taken in relation to the bill which he thought incorrect: first, that it became necessary from the war existing with Mexico; second, that it was designed to relieve the paymasters from oppressive duty. By referring to the report of the Paymaster General, which accompanied the President's Message at the commencement of this session of Congress, it will be found, that before this war commenced, and in reference to the then condition of the army, an increase of the paymasters was desired; and in the close of his report a convincing statement was made for the necessity of an Assistant Paymaster General—not, as has been assumed, to reside here, but to superintend payments in the military district of the Southwest; and this was enforced by the fact that he was then compelled to station a senior paymaster at headquarters of the army in Texas to discharge the duties of assistant to the Paymaster General. Sir, it is not to relieve the paymasters from fatigue, but to insure prompt and regular payments to the troops, that this increase was asked. If the number of paymasters be half of those required to make payments to the army at the regular periods, which is every two months, it follows that the payments will be delayed, and occur every four or every six months. The hardship would fall entirely on the troops to be paid, not on the disbursing officers who pay them. And as to the amount of service which the paymasters can be required to perform without destroying the efficiency of the department, I think gentlemen should allow the Paymaster General to be a better judge than ourselves. But to aid us in a conclusion, he has given the fact, that to pay at all the posts and arsenals as often as the law requires, would require travelling to exceed 100,000 miles per annum. This referred entirely to the state of things as they existed prior to a war with Mexico.
The second section of the bill changes the tenure, which is now an anomaly in the service, either land or naval. Quartermasters, commissaries, officers of the engineer department engaged in the construction of works, are charged with disbursements which cannot be so closely supervised as those of the pay department. It is the same case with pursers in the navy, yet all these hold their offices during the pleasure of the President; which, by practice, is considered equal to during good behavior.
This bill seeks to place paymasters on the same footing with other disbursing officers of the army; and I see no reason why they should be made an exception to the rule. Their attendance upon a marching army requires that their commissions should not expire during a campaign, as much as that a purser's commission should not expire on a voyage; and the tenure of their office should be fixed in reference to this, perhaps the most important, portion of their duties. The proposed change of tenure could not impair their efficiency or weaken their responsibility under ordinary circumstances, whilst it would adapt them to the extraordinary condition of war. The liability of all disbursing officers of the army to be removed by the President is constant; it is expected to follow immediately on a failure quarterly to account for funds placed in their hands, and with the amendments to require new bonds every four years, the present bill seems very free from well-founded objections.
The gentleman from South Carolina has so ably covered the whole ground that it is unnecessary to go further into it.
Mr. D. referred to remarks made yesterday by Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee, which were particularly directed against himself. He said, among those to whom he had been long known no explanation could be necessary; but here, having been misunderstood, it seemed to be called for.
Once for all, then, he would say, that if he knew himself, he was incapable of wantonly wounding the feelings, or of making invidious reflections upon the origin or occupation of any man. He had, two days since, in a reply to the gentleman from Ohio, endeavored to correct this misunderstanding; it seemed, however, he had not succeeded. That gentleman [Mr. SAWYER] had, on a previous occasion, expressed his want of confidence in those officers of our army who had been cadets, and said, for the defence of the country we must look to the farmers and mechanics.
Mr. D. said, in answering that position he had referred to the service lately rendered by our army on the Rio Grande had pointed out the results of skill and military science, and asked if such achievements could have been expected from men who had not the advantage of a military education.
He named two of the trades of civil life, not because they were less useful or honorable than others, not that either one or the other could disqualify a man from acquiring the other. On a former occasion, and for a similar purpose, he had made an extended allusion to many trades and professions, to all he had not thought it necessary again to refer. His opinion, in all its bearings, was no more than this, that war, like other knowledge, must be acquired. A military education did not qualify for the civil pursuits of life, nor did preparation for any of the civil pursuits, in itself, qualify for the duties of a soldier.
Was it necessary for him to say that a citizen might acquire the knowledge of arms, might become a distinguished soldier? Surely no one can deny it. He referred to the commander-in-chief of our army in terms of high commendation as a scientific soldier; said he had once been a lawyer, but had ceased to be so, and his military fame since he had become a soldier had almost swallowed up the remembrance of his earlier profession.
SOURCE: Dunbar Rowland, Editor, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist: His Letters, Papers and Speeches, Volume 1, p. 50-2
No comments:
Post a Comment