without a previous proclamation. But yet the proclamation seems to be in
words directed only against insurgents, and to require them to disperse,
thereby implying not only an insurrection, but an organized, or at least
an embodied, force. Such a proclamation in aid of the civil authority
would often defeat the whole object by giving such notice to persons
intended to be arrested that they would be enabled to fly or secrete
themselves. The force may be wanted sometimes to make the arrest, and
also sometimes to protect the officer after it is made, and to prevent
a rescue. I would therefore suggest that this section be modified by
declaring that nothing therein contained shall be construed to require
any previous proclamation when the militia are called forth, either to
repel invasion, to execute the laws, or suppress combinations against
them, and that the President may make such call and place such militia
under the control of any civil officer of the United States to aid him
in executing the laws or suppressing such combinations; and while so
employed they shall be paid by and subsisted at the expense of the
United States.

Congress, not probably adverting to the difference between the militia
and the Regular Army, by the act of March 3, 1807, authorized the
President to use the land and naval forces of the United States for the
same purposes for which he might call forth the militia, and subject
to the same proclamation. But the power of the President under the
Constitution, as Commander of the Army and Navy, is general, and his
duty to see the laws faithfully executed is general and positive; and
the act of 1807 ought not to be construed as evincing any disposition in
Congress to limit or restrain this constitutional authority. For greater
certainty, however, it may be well that Congress should modify or
explain this act in regard to its provisions for the employment of the
Army and Navy of the United States, as well as that in regard to calling