of the people had induced many, who had the means, to provide themselves with muskets. These arms were among the people, but the law, in those times, could not easily increase their number, nor promote their distribution; and it must have found a large deficiency, which its enactments would in vain attempt to supply. The only beneficial effect, then, that could have been promised by this section, was to bring the arms then in existence under public inspection and control, and leave more effectual provisions for more prosperous times.

As these prosperous times may be said to have arrived, it is proper to inquire what these effectual provisions ought to be. The national resources are now great, and we are yearly expending millions for the defence of the country. The first attention should undoubtedly be devoted to the more permanent and essential parts of this defence, such as the army, navy, and fortifications. But as the militia constitutes a part of our national defence, it may assuredly have a claim on our treasury, after more urgent demands have been answered. In all other instances of taxation, the poor man bears a burden only in proportion to his pecuniary ability; he participates in the support of government, in the maintenance of the army and navy, and the construction of fortifications, according to his property. But in the arming of the militia he sustains an unequal weight. The day laborer, in this respect, contributes the same towards the defence or protection of his country, as his most affluent fellow citizen. There is more than injustice in this; it perpetuates some of the greatest defects in the militia, such as the insufficiency in number, and the badness in quality, of its arms. Many among the poorer classes of society are unable to equip themselves. We are aware that some of the states have laws to remedy this evil; but we shall probably never have a well armed militia, until the arms are supplied by the United States. The burden would then fall with due pressure on all the community, and the arms would be of the same kind throughout the country. We do not pretend to indicate the mode in which this supply of arms should be made. The resources of the country would undoubtedly restrict it to a gradual operation. If, at present, there were to be an apportionment to each state, with adequate means of constructing arsenals, there would be a foundation laid. This apportionment might be gradually ex

tended, until the quantity reached the maximum of the military strength of each state. The management of these arms and equipments might safely be left to the direction of each state, which should exercise its discretion as to their distribution and the location of the arsenals for their preservation. And whenever the time shall arrive, that each regiment, or even each company, shall have a separate arsenal, where its arms shall always be kept in readiness for service, and be confined exclusively to public purposes, the best mode of arming the militia will probably have been attained.

Training the militia is indisputably an important object; but we should regard it, at least for the present, as secondary to that of arming it. The slight instruction, which can be afforded to militia in their occasional trainings, as it is bestowed on a changing and intractable mass, is not of great advantage. Whenever called into the field, we believe, that three weeks daily drill, with an expectation of approaching service, will advance them more in all kinds of discipline, than the same number of months divided among occasional trainings. To render the militia effective in this respect requires only time and attention. But it is not the work of a short time to arm the militia. If, however, the arms once exist, and are within reach, a permanent benefit is established. We have the material of defence, the body and nerve of military efficiency.

The second section of the law above mentioned designates the exemptions under the general government, and leaves to the states the power of exempting all persons, who now are, or may be exempted by the laws of the respective states.' We know not the latitude which has been taken by most of the states under this clause. In Massachusetts we are inclined to think it has been rather too extensive. Congress did not assume the power of designating exemptions for the states. Such an interference would probably have

been as unwelcome as ineffectual. The states alone could judge to what extent the exemption should go; but there is certainly a limit. No one would contend that a state could properly exempt all her citizens; and yet the claim itself appears to set no bounds. We should then look for the intentions of Congress, to the extent allowed with regard to the general government. Had the law said, that the exemption

should embrace all, whose agency is necessary for the due operation of the executive, judicial, and legislative departments of government, it would probably have expressed its meaning, as well as by enumeration. And the same phraseology might have been properly applicable to the states, with an exception of the clergy, and perhaps of certain religious sects; though the latter might justly be taxed with the fine for nonattendance, and would probably see no reason for complaint, as they equally share in the benefits of protection.

We do not allege, that the laws of Massachusetts entirely exempt from militia duty a greater class, than is required for the due execution of her laws. But we are inclined to think that the law, which partially exempts whole classes, demanding little more than a registry of their names, and the exhibition of their arms, has at least the effect of diminishing the zeal and good will of the other classes, who see themselves apparently excluded from immunities, to which they have the same legal title. It is true, there is a commutation for attendance in money, the application of which, to purposes connected with the militia, may be somewhat beneficial; but this does not change the character of the exemption; it is undoubtedly considered as a privilege, and is confined to a certain age, which, by the law of Congress, has no superior claims. Discriminations of this kind must have an injurious tendency; the subjects of exclusion may think themselves injured, and perhaps really are so.

In some of the states, if we are not mistaken, the exemption does not even embrace those who have borne military commissions; but we should doubt the expediency of this. The sacrifice of time and money, necessarily attendant on all commissions in the militia, should have some other counterbalance than the mere honor of holding them. Strong inducements should be held out for good and able men to accept these commissions, as the excellence of the militia mainly depends on such characters; and few men, probably, would be found willing to assume this burden, however honorable it may be, if it were accompanied by privileges less desirable than at present.

The sixth section, which requires that an Adjutant General shall be appointed in each state, in order to collect all returns and reports, and present them annually in a consolidated

form to both state and general governments, would seem to be an effectual provision for this important duty. But it is a singular and lamentable fact, as appears by the last documents laid before Congress relating to the militia, that no less than three states have made no returns to the general government during the last eight or ten years. We can imagine no sufficient excuse for such continued delinquency, and cannot but regard it as indicative of great unsoundness in the military laws or customs of those particular states.

The seventh section, which prescribes the mode of discipline for the militia, has been abrogated by a subsequent law, so far as it respects the system to be followed. The adoption of the present system of the regular army was both proper and necessary. As the militia, when called into service, must often serve with the army, it should be taught, so far as its instruction goes, in precisely the same manner. But Scott's System,' as it is often termed, which is the one prescribed by law, is a work very copious in its details, rather cumbrous in its size, and is suited, in its present form, only to the regular army.

The system of Steuben is obsolete. Great improvements have been made in the art of war since the time of this veteran and republican Prussian, and it is proper that the militia should come up to the improvements of the age. But at present, we are not sure that the militia has been benefited by the change. Steuben's system was compressed into a small portable volume, easily circulated, and easily comprehended. Every militia officer, doubtless, had one, and he was not deterred from attempts to master its contents, by their bulk or scientific perplexities. But the system now in force, embracing the military system of drill and manœuvring in all its fulness and detail, has the disadvantage of being both unwieldy and complex. General Sumner moreover says, that this new system has never been officially made known to the state authorities.' If there be any other notification necessary to the state authorities, than the promulgation of the law, its omission is certainly most inexcusable; for, as he justly remarks, as long as its authority is at all questionable, the effect to be apprehended is 'the distribution of mutilated compilations, or what are called amended editions, of the United States military tactics.' A uniformity of discipline

among the several states must certainly be destroyed, if these amended editions are, as is too often the case, merely altered editions.

We should apprehend that the evil is within the remedial power of the states. If the general law has established that system as a guide, there can be no deviation from it; but there is no obligation to teach it in extenso. The attempt would be fruitless. General Bernard says, speaking of the militia in his letter to General Sumner, with respect to their drill or instruction in the field exercises, it appears to me that their thorough instruction in the School of the Soldier, in the School of Company, and in the School of Battalion, would suffice; to which, however, it would be proper to add the exercises of riflemen and light troops;' subjoining, that the instruction of the militia in these branches should be exactly the same with that of the army, and that their printed regulations for these branches should be the same word for word.' We are inclined to think the latitude which General Bernard takes is sufficiently comprehensive; and that, as a general rule, if the ordinary exercises of the militia were thus restricted, their expertness would be so much the greater, as their lessons would be the more simple and frequently repeated. An abridgment of the United States System could therefore be made to embrace this basis of discipline, with such additions relating to police and encampments, taken from the Army Regulations' on those subjects, as might be deemed suitable and necessary. Such a volume would be fit for general diffusion, and possess all the popular charteristics of the well known Steuben, and, sanctioned by the state authorities, would at once prevail. It should be a copy, 'word for word,' as far as it goes. The idea of adapting the system to the militia in any other way, than by abbreviation, is inadmissible, if not illegal.

If there be any branch to which the United States systems do not extend, the state authorities may supply the deficiency; but we know of none in this situation, unless it be the cavalry. The United States have no system of tactics or discipline adapted to that arm, and had none, so far as we recollect, even during the late war, although we had regiments of dragoons. Both our artillery and our cavalry, we believe, were then sent into the field without any other guides as to instructVOL. XIX.-No. 45.

37