Page:State Documents on Federal Relations.djvu/73

59] of the United States. These exigencies are of such a nature, that the existence of them can be easily ascertained by, or made known to, the Commanders in Chief of the militia; and when ascertained, the public interest will produce prompt obedience to the acts of Congress.

Another question proposed to the consideration of the judges, is, whether, when either of the exigencies exist, authorizing the employing of the militia in the service of the United States, the militia thus employed can be lawfully commanded by any officer not of the militia, except by the President of the United States?

[Senate Doc. 13 Cong. 3 sess. Report of Com. on Military Affairs, Feb. 28, 1815, 38–42.]
 * The officers of the militia are to be appointed by the states, and the President may exercise his command of the militia by officers of the militia, duly appointed; but we know of no constitutional provision authorizing any officer of the army of the United States to command the militia, or authorizing any officer of the militia to command the army of the United States. The Congress may provide laws for the government of the militia when in actual service; but to extend this power to placing them under the command of an officer not of the militia, except the President, would render nugatory the provision that the militia are to have officers appointed by the states. ***

Upon the receipt of General Dearborn's requisition, Governor Griswold convened the Council, June 29, 1812. This body advised him not to comply with the requisition on grounds similar to those afterwards taken by the authorities of Massachusetts. Upon the renewal of the requisition by the Federal authorities, Governor Griswold, on August 4, reconvened the Council, which body again recommended a non-compliance with the requisition, whereupon the Governor called the General Assembly in extra session on August 25, and in his message reviewed the situation. The General Assembly, on the same day, adopted a Report and Resolutions, extracts from which follow, and also a Declaration containing a justification of their action. In 1814 a similar controversy to that with Massachusetts arose between the State authorities and