Page:A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Confederacy, Including the Diplomatic Correspondence, 1861-1865, Volume I.djvu/190

162 Executive. I receive assurances from those whose sources of information are entirely reliable that the raising and organization of troops in Missouri for service in the Confederate Army are successfully progressing, and that within a very few days the muster rolls will be received, thus placing it in my power to organize the Army in that State on precisely the same footing as in all the others, and thus avoid any need for exceptional legislation.

In addition to these objections founded on principle there would be a practical difficulty in the operation of the bill, which appears insurmountable. All the troops now in service in the State of Missouri are State troops, commanded by State officers, which have never been tendered or received in the Confederate service. In exercising the power of appointment proposed to be vested in me by the bill the best hope for success in its purpose would be founded on selecting those officers who had distinguished themselves in command and had become endeared to the troops. But this would be to deprive the State troops of their commanding officers during the whole period necessary for the enrollment and organization of the troops under Confederate laws. Missouri would thus be left comparatively defenseless whilst the reorganization was progressing. Therefore regarding this bill as impolitic and unnecessary, it is submitted for your reconsideration.

 February 1, 1862. To the Confederate Congress.

I return with my objections the bill passed by you entitled "An Act to provide for granting furloughs in certain cases."

Before proceeding to lay before you the special objections entertained to the provisions of this bill it is proper that I should express the firm conviction that it is, from the nature of things, impracticable to administer an army in the field by statute. The Constitution vests in the Congress the power "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." None can deny the wisdom of this provision, nor the propriety of the exercise of this power by the Congress in its full extent; but there is an obvious distinction between making rules for the 