00000071 |
Previous | 71 of 866 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
46 HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
executive of the United States, charged with the direction of the national force, fails in a
provident system of resistance, and a State shall be impelled, by self defence, to expend
her individual resources in defensive operations, that the general government is bound to
grant an indemnity from the national treasury, commensurate with the State's expenditure.
" Your committee are also of opinion that the Constitution of the United States contemplated that each State, according to the probability and facility of invasion, should
alike participate in the parental care of the general government; and that any preference;
displayed by the executive of the United States, either in yielding to one more prompt and
general protection than to another, or assuming the payment of the necessary expenditure
made by a State government for the protection of the State, and denying the like assumption to others, for the disbursements, is a departure from the impartiality contemplated by
the Constitution, and would require from the State thus injured, an unequivocal remonstrance against such an abandonment of constitutional duty."
After reviewing the correspondence between the governor and the federal
executive, and the action of the governor to protect the State from invasion,
the committee proceeded as follows:
" On the twenty-first, and twenty-second of March, as it appears by the official com-
municatioruof the Governor of Virginia, to the Legislature of that State, the executive
of the United States,' in conformity with its power and duty, took upon itself the defence
of that State, and sanctioned the course pursued by the executive of the State of Virginia,
in calling out the militia.' Your committee deem it requisite to remark that it appears
also, from the report made to this House, of the executive mission to Washington, and the
letter of the Secretary of War, of the 24th May, that the President of the United States
has agreed to cause the expenditures of Virginia, in consequence of the employment of her
militia, under the authority of the laws of that State, to be paid out of the public treasury.
That he has not sanctioned the course pursued by the executive of Maryland, and has
refused to cause the expenditures made by this State, in consequence of the employment of her militia, under the authority of the laws of this State, to be paid out of the
public treasury, alleging, that' no provision was found under the present laws' for expenditures arising ' in consequence of militia calls made by the State;' but,' on the other hand,
in all cases in which militia detachments had been called out or recognized (as in the case
of the Baltimore militia), by the authority of the Union, such provision was found to exist
and could be applied.'
" Your committee are fully sensible of the embarrassing situation in which the State
is placed, from the omission and refusal of the General Government to fulfil the only
object of its creation, ' the protection of its citizens.' To carry on the war, or apply a
resisting power to the advances of the enemy, by the resources only of this State, would
establish a precedent, leading to a contribution by the State of more than her due proportion to a war, having for its declared object the establishment of a national benefit, and
which eventually must exhaust our treasury, now appropriated to many benevolent
objects of State legislation. But inasmuch as self-security is superior to every consideration of expediency, your committee would recommend the adoption of a system of defence
the best calculated within our limited means to protect our constituents from the incursions of the enemy."
The committee then recommend the adoption of a number of resolutions, one of
which declares " that the State of Maryland is entitled to a fair distribution of the national
means for its protection; and that the refusal of the Executive of the United States to
assume the liquidation of the claims arising from the employment of the militia of this
State, in the same manner that they have liquidated those of Virginia for the employment
| Title | History of Maryland - 3 |
| Creator | Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas) |
| Publisher | J. B. Piet |
| Place of Publication | Baltimore |
| Date | 1879 |
| Language | eng |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Title | 00000071 |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Transcript | 46 HISTORY OF MARYLAND. executive of the United States, charged with the direction of the national force, fails in a provident system of resistance, and a State shall be impelled, by self defence, to expend her individual resources in defensive operations, that the general government is bound to grant an indemnity from the national treasury, commensurate with the State's expenditure. " Your committee are also of opinion that the Constitution of the United States contemplated that each State, according to the probability and facility of invasion, should alike participate in the parental care of the general government; and that any preference; displayed by the executive of the United States, either in yielding to one more prompt and general protection than to another, or assuming the payment of the necessary expenditure made by a State government for the protection of the State, and denying the like assumption to others, for the disbursements, is a departure from the impartiality contemplated by the Constitution, and would require from the State thus injured, an unequivocal remonstrance against such an abandonment of constitutional duty." After reviewing the correspondence between the governor and the federal executive, and the action of the governor to protect the State from invasion, the committee proceeded as follows: " On the twenty-first, and twenty-second of March, as it appears by the official com- municatioruof the Governor of Virginia, to the Legislature of that State, the executive of the United States,' in conformity with its power and duty, took upon itself the defence of that State, and sanctioned the course pursued by the executive of the State of Virginia, in calling out the militia.' Your committee deem it requisite to remark that it appears also, from the report made to this House, of the executive mission to Washington, and the letter of the Secretary of War, of the 24th May, that the President of the United States has agreed to cause the expenditures of Virginia, in consequence of the employment of her militia, under the authority of the laws of that State, to be paid out of the public treasury. That he has not sanctioned the course pursued by the executive of Maryland, and has refused to cause the expenditures made by this State, in consequence of the employment of her militia, under the authority of the laws of this State, to be paid out of the public treasury, alleging, that' no provision was found under the present laws' for expenditures arising ' in consequence of militia calls made by the State;' but,' on the other hand, in all cases in which militia detachments had been called out or recognized (as in the case of the Baltimore militia), by the authority of the Union, such provision was found to exist and could be applied.' " Your committee are fully sensible of the embarrassing situation in which the State is placed, from the omission and refusal of the General Government to fulfil the only object of its creation, ' the protection of its citizens.' To carry on the war, or apply a resisting power to the advances of the enemy, by the resources only of this State, would establish a precedent, leading to a contribution by the State of more than her due proportion to a war, having for its declared object the establishment of a national benefit, and which eventually must exhaust our treasury, now appropriated to many benevolent objects of State legislation. But inasmuch as self-security is superior to every consideration of expediency, your committee would recommend the adoption of a system of defence the best calculated within our limited means to protect our constituents from the incursions of the enemy." The committee then recommend the adoption of a number of resolutions, one of which declares " that the State of Maryland is entitled to a fair distribution of the national means for its protection; and that the refusal of the Executive of the United States to assume the liquidation of the claims arising from the employment of the militia of this State, in the same manner that they have liquidated those of Virginia for the employment |
