Page:Speeches, correspondence and political papers of Carl Schurz, Volume 2.djvu/227

Rh Is it not also stated in the Constitution which confides to him the Army and Navy?

Yes, sir; but it does not confide to him power to use that Army and Navy against a foreign nation with which we are at peace, at his own discretion.

It confides to him those means, and he says he will use the means the Constitution confides to him.

Well, now, I must declare this is felt to be a desperate case by the Senator, and if it were transacted—I have to use the simile again—in the court of a justice of the peace in Nebraska or Kansas, then I could understand such arguments; but I cannot appreciate them upon the floor of the Senate.

I protest against the justices of the peace of my State being brought up.

The Senator from Kansas protests that even in the offices of the justices of the peace of his State such arguments would not be tolerated.

No, I protest against any reflection upon the justices of the peace in my State.

Well, it would be a reflection to be sure.

The Senator from Missouri will allow Nebraska to put in a disclaimer also.

With the greatest pleasure. Now as to the second point in which the case of John Tyler and John C. Calhoun differs from that here under consideration. President Tyler attempted to justify what he did while the Texas annexation treaty was pending before the Senate. But here we see the naval forces, the warships of the United States kept at their unholy business long after the treaty for the annexation of San Domingo has been formally rejected by the Senate of the United States, and while not even the pretense of a treaty engagement exists between the United States and the Dominican