Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση
[ocr errors]

plusage. This amendment is not mine in any
sense. It was a mere suggestion which would
reach the object which the gentleman from
Pennsylvania sought to accomplish. But I
am quite sure that it is not harmless surplus-
age. If the committee intend that graduates
from West Point shall not be eligible unless
they have served as volunteers, I am not pre-
pared to say that it is not right.

Mr. SCHENCK. The objection I make, on
reflection, is that it is all wrong to appoint a
graduate from West Point who, during the
war, has not been in service.

volunteer officer. If he served in the regular Army he does not want a place as second lieutenant, because he has a place already. If he did not serve at all he has no business in any Army of the United States. If any man having the advantage of a military education such as that given at West Point could go through this war indifferent, not seeking employment on the part of the country, he ought not to be permitted to come into the Army after the war is over. That is my doctrine, sir, and I would enforce it.

Mr. CHANLER. Let me say

Mr. SCHENCK. I do not want to be interrupted, and I am never able to hear what the gentleman says even if I were to yield to him.

If the section is permitted to stand with the proposed amendment, which I assented to, but which on reflection I believe to be all wrong, if graduates come in as volunteers, it throws open the door for those graduates who have been in the rebel army. No one, I presume, intended that, yet it has that effect. Or its effect will be to throw open the door to those who have been in no army, but resigned perhaps from our Army when the war broke out because they did not want to be in during the war, and are willing to return in the position of second lieutenant when all danger has gone by. We do not want them to be admitted. I ask, therefore, that the amendment by which these words were introduced shall be reconsidered. If anything be done with that class I prefer to fall back upon what was agreed between my colleague and myself, that hereafter a graduate of West Point shall be eligible to a second lieutenancy, the object of the committee being to save these educated young gentlemen and not exclude them from appointments by giving all these subaltern positions to volunteers. It will carry out, too, the intention of the committee to provide two thirds above first lieutenants shall be volunteers, and that all the first and second lieutenants shall be volunteers except these graduates from West Point who shall be eligible to come in as second lieuten

ants.

I ask the House, therefore, to reconsider the vote by which the first amendment was adopted; and I give notice that if that motion shall prevail then I shall propose, or my colleague on the committee [Mr. BLAINE] will propose, to amend the provision.

Mr. BLAINE. I will send to the Clerk's desk the amendment I propose. I understood on Friday last, when I yielded to the amendment of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. HALE,] that that amendment of the gentleman from New York was to constitute a part, and not to take the place of my amendment. Under that misapprehension I yielded, which I should not otherwise have done.

Mr. BLAINE'S amendment was read, as follows:

Provided, however, That cadets hereafter graduating from the United States Military Academy shall be eligible to appointments as second lieutenants.

Mr. CONKLING. I came into the Hall in time to hear the amendment read, and I take the liberty at this moment, to suggest to the Committee on Military Affairs that the amendment which has been adopted will be as necessary and applicable in case the motion to reconsider should prevail as otherwise, because when you say those who graduate hereafter shall be eligible, you do not provide, unless you express it in terms, that they shall be eligible without previous service.

Mr. BLAINE. The gentleman from New York being absent, he failed to hear the suggestion of the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs. I wish to say further, that when I yielded on Friday to the gentleman from New York, it was on the understanding that his amendment should be incorporated with mine, not thinking that it would be put simply in place of mine. That gave rise to an evil which the chairman of the committee has just explained.

Mr. CONKLING. I hope the House will not vote in here anything as harmless sur

Provided, That cadets hereafter graduating shall be eligible, &c.

Mr. CONKLING. I appreciate that point.
Mr. SCHENCK. If he has served in the
rebel army he ought not to be appointed. If
he has served in the Union Army he is pro-
vided for. If, with his military education, he
has not served at all, more shame for him.

Mr. CONKLING. I agree that there is
great force in that, and I have no opinion to
express against it.
I only say that if, in oppo-
sition to that view, the intention was to render
eligible cadets without service, then the amend-
ment suggested was necessary. In that view
the amendment was not surplusage; otherwise
it amounts to nothing.

Mr. CHANLER. I think this proposition coming from the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] is certainly consistent. I do not see why colored troops should not be employed in this branch of the service as well as in any other. I do not doubt but that the colored troops are valuable soldiers and fought well in the late war. I am willing to go further and invite the gentleman from Pennsylvania to take the lead and authorize this Government to enroll colored troops as officers in the United States Army. A petition has been

Mr. BLAINE. I think the gentleman from New York misapprehends the point of the amendment. The bill confined the appoint-presented to the House on this very subject, ments to the subaltern grades, first and second lieutenancies, to volunteers, and without a proviso letting in West Point graduates they could not get in. Being confined by the letter of the bill to volunteers, a proviso was put in saving the chances of the West Point graduates. The proviso now pending is:

and the Committee on Military Affairs refused to grant its prayer. You have soldiers enough here to witness it, and the whole country has witnessed the sincerity of your arguments in behalf of the colored troops. If Hannibal crossed the Alps and is worthy of being quoted here for introducing colored troops into his army, go on and let your Hannibals supplant your Grants.

That makes it as clear as anything can be.
Mr. BOYER. Would it not obviate all diffi-
culty to insert after the word "eligible" the
words "immediately upon graduation?",

Mr. BLAINE. Well, put those words in.
Mr. BOYER. Let the amendment read:
Provided, however, That graduates of the United
States Military Academy shall be eligible, immedi-
ately upon graduation, to appointments, &c.

[blocks in formation]

Now, I see that by the Senate bill two regiments of colored troops, out of the six regiments that are to be added, are provided for. I think that that ought to be so in the House bill. That has been omitted unless it has been inserted in some other section. I suppose it has not been, and I move, therefore, to amend this third section by inserting, after the word "regiments," in the ninth line, the words "two of which shall be composed of colored men;" so that it shall read:

That to the six regiments of cavalry now in the service there shall be added six regiments, two of which shall be composed of colored men, &c.

service, and hence I approve of the Senate proposition rather than that of the House.

I offer this amendment because I believe
that colored troops do better as cavalry than
perhaps in any other branch of the service.
They have been skillful horsemen all their lives.
If there was anything they were taught by their

southern masters it was how to ride on horse-
back. I understand from officers who have
served with them that they make excellent
cavalry, so far as they have had any expe-
rience. I think, therefore, they should have an
opportunity of serving in that branch of the

Mr. SCHENCK. I will only remark upon this subject that, after looking over the whole ground, it was concluded by the Committee on Military Affairs to report in favor of eight regiments of colored infantry troops, without making any cavalry regiments consist of the same character of troops. We have nothing espe cially to say about it except to submit the ques tion to the House whether they will not agree to that suggestion of the committee. I have no feeling about it one way or the other. If it be thought by the House that two of the six new regiments of cavalry should be colored troops, it will not in any way affect the bill in its other features.

There is a list published in the morning papers of to-day of military members of this House who propose holding a public meeting in this city. Their names are headed by the distinguished chairman of the Military Committee, and it contains with one or two exceptions the names of all the officers who are members of this House upon the other side, who served as volunteers in the Army of the United States. I do not see the name of any man who served from this side of the House, although there are those who so served.

I wish to know from the chairman of the Military Committee if he shrinks from placing the officers of the Army of the United States in competition with negroes. Is he afraid to enter into that fair and open field of competition to which he has invited the common soldier to enter in this proposed reorganization of the Army? Is it fear or is it prejudice that leads him to refuse to do that? Is he ignorant of the capacity of the negro, or is he influenced to such an extent by the narrow-minded habits of life in which the honorable gentleman has been educated that he cannot see the injustice of his own bill?

Now, if his system of organizing the American Army is worth anything, it should be consistent; it should be a unit with itself. There should be no difference or distinction on account of race or color either in the ranks or among the officers. The gentleman seems to shirk the responsibility of elevating the negro The gentlemen of the Military Committee seem to tremble for their own personal distinction in that respect.

race.

I look with eagerness and interest to the course pursued by the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. STEVENS.] His intimate relations with the colored race, his knowledge of their virtues and their fascinations enable him to advocate the necessity of giving the colored race an opportunity of entering the military service of this country. He understands fully the reasons why the doors should be thrown open to the descendants of the black race, who bear the proud stains of the highest men in the Government of this country to-day or in the past, whose mothers were the victims of the seductive charms of the witty white man. I congratulate the venerable gentleman from Pennsylvania, that he is not ignorant of their

[ocr errors]

virtues, their courage, or their merits, and I respect him when he comes forward as the champion of the black race, and insists that the President of the United States, under his general power as the Commander-in-Chief of the armies of the United States, shall invite the worthy of the black race to positions in it; and do it, too, under the provisions of the civil rights bill, which, having made them citizens of the United States, should also admit them as members of the Army by this bill to reorganize your Army.

The civil rights bill having been passed, the laws under which your Army is now organized gives the power to the Commander-in-Chief of the Army. And I wish to see no laggard philanthropy huddling about the poor privates of the Army, but they should be allowed the highest grades that white men have been allowed to reach. Now, the gentlemen of the Military Committee know very well the ability and capacity which the corporals and sergeants of the colored troops have acquired by their service in the Army to this time. And I want to know why, in the present state of public opinion, those gentlemen have not brought forward in their bill a proposition so laudable, so consistent, so patriotic, so just, and so absolutely necessary to meet the exigencies of the civil rights bill which they have forced upon us.

I do not want to see the gentleman, the chairman of the Military Committee, confine his liberality to the private soldiers of the regular Army, I want to see him, with that manly courage which has always characterized him, take the part of the humble officers of the colored troops, the sergeants and corporals;_take them by the hand and lead them up to the President of the United States, the Commander-inChief of all our armies, and claim for them .positions as officers in the Army. He knows the arguments which have been used here so often on every occasion. The blood of our brave colored troops has flowed in rivulets upon every battle-field of this great war, while those who urged by persistent arguments the necessity for the use of the black man as a soldier remained here in this House, or but seldom exercised their prowess on the field.

I hope an amendment will be made in this spirit. I hope the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] will lead us on. He is the Moses of the day. Let him lead on in this great work; and let the gentlemen of the Military Committee hold up the hands of the modern Moses, so that these people may pass over in safety. And the time will not be far distant when the military organization of this country will be filled by the patriotic members of the colored race.

The question recurred on Mr. STEVENS'S amendment.

The House again divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 56, noes 12; no quorum voting. Mr. SPALDING moved that there be a call of the House.

The motion was disagreed to.

The House divided; and there were-ayes 46, noes 12; no quorum voting.

Mr. CHANLER demanded the yeas and

nays.

The yeas and nays were not ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore, (Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, in the chair,) no quorum having appeared on the last vote, ordered tellers, and appointed Messrs. BLAINE and CHAN

LER.

The House again divided; and the tellers reported-ayes fifty-six, noes not counted.

Mr. GRIDER. It was my understanding that the House was dividing on ordering the yeas and nays. It was certainly my intention that the tellers should be, not on the amendment, but on ordering the yeas and nays. I demanded tellers on the yeas and nays at the time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair did not hear the gentleman from Kentucky demand tellers on the yeas and nays, The yeas and nays were refused, and the Chair ordered tellers on the amendment, as there was no quorum on the previous vote.

Mr. CHANLER. I insist that the division shall go on. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The tellers will resume their places.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Baker, Baldwin, Barker, Baxter, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Boutwell, Brandegee, Bromwell, Bundy, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Conkling. Cook, Davis, Defrees, Deming, Donnelly, Eckley, Eliot, Garfield, Grinnell, Hale, Abner C. Harding, Hayes, Henderson, Hooper, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Kelley, Kelso, Laflin, Loan, Longyear, Marston, Marvin, McClurg, McKee, Mercur, Moorhead, Morris, Moulton, Myers, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Patterson, Price, William H. Randall, Raymond, Alexander H. Rice, John H. Rice, Rollins, Schenck. Scofield, Shellabarger, Spalding, Stevens, Thayer, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Ward. Warner, Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Welker, Wentworth, Williams, Stephen F. Wilson Windom, and Woodbridge-79.

NAYS-Messrs. Boyer, Chanler, Coffroth, Farnsworth, Finck, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Grider, Aaron Harding, Hill, Hogan, Chester D. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, Kuykendall, Marshall, McCullough, Morrill, Nicholson, Phelps, Ritter, Ross, Rousseau, Shanklin, Taber, Taylor, Thornton, Robert T. Van Horn, and Henry D. Washburn-28.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Alley, Ancona, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Banks, Beaman, Bergen, Blaine, Blow, Broomall, Buckland, Cullom, Culver, Darling, Dawes, Dawson, Delano, Denison, Dixon, Dodge, Driggs, Dumont, Eggleston, Eldridge, Farquhar, Ferry, Griswold, Harris, Hart, Higby, Holmes, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, John II. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, James Humphrey, James M. Humphrey, Johnson, Jones, Julian, Kasson, Kerr, Ketcham, Latham, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Le Blond, Lynch, McIndoe, McRuer, Miller, Newell, Niblack, Noell, Perham, Pike, Plants, Pomeroy, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, Rogers, Sawyer, Sitgreaves, Sloan, Smith, Starr, Stilwell, Strouse, Trimble, Burt Van Horn, Whaley, James F. Wilson, Winfield, and Wright-76.

So the amendment was agreed to.
During the vote,

Mr. TROWBRIDGE stated that his colleague, Mr. BEAMAN, was compelled to leave the House by indisposition.

The vote was then announced as above recorded.

Mr. BLAINE. I move, after the words "any portion of the cavalry force herein authorized may be dismounted and armed and drilled as

infantry at the discretion of the President," to insert the following:

But the number so dismounted shall be taken, so far as the interests of the service will permit, pro

portionately and impartially from the several cavalry

regiments.

matter, shall, so far as the interest of the service will allow, be impartially shared between all the regiments of the cavalry service, which will remove jealousy and create fair play all

I will explain the object and the necessity for this amendment. The cavalry service consists at present of six regiments. It is proposed to add six. There is a great deal of jealousy among the cavalry when they are dismounted, and the natural operation would be that those who are last enlisted would be, in a body, or as whole regiments, kept dismounted, and the old regiments would be kept mounted, and a great deal of discontent and unfairness would be the result.

The Senate bill undertakes to remove that trouble by proposing that not exceeding four companies of each regiment shall be dismounted. The effect of that will be to make twelve cavalry regiments of eight companies each. My amendment simply means this: that the portion dismounted, whatever it may be in the judgment of those having charge of the

around.

I need not say, perhaps, that I move this with the assent of the members of the committee. The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. SCHENCK. I move to amend section three by adding this at the end:

And such regiment shall have one veterinary surgeon, whose compensation shall be $125 per month.

It applies only to the cavalry. These persons employed now are receiving about seventyfive dollars, and rank as sergeants. They get certain allowances, but they are paid an amount about sufficient to secure the service of com petent, scientific horse doctors.

It has been suggested to me in a communication on the subject by the chief of the Cavalry Bureau that it is absolutely necessary, in order that proper persons may be secured, that the pay should be somewhat increased. And every one acquainted with the cavalry service will understand how essential this officer is.

It is also proposed to give them the rank, without command, of captain. I cannot bring my mind to assent to that proposition. I see no reason why, without command, we should give them that rank. But I think the pay should be increased so as to afford additional inducement for securing good officers. This $125 per month will be the entire compensation. They will be without any allowances or emoluments if this amendment shall pass. It amounts to $1,500 a year, which I think is

necessary.

The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FARNSWORTH] suggests $100 a month. I think it is not, and in the opinion of the chief of the Cavalry Bureau, men cannot be engaged for that sum who are of the right character.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I suggest $100 a month, assimilating it to the amount paid by the Government to contract surgeons in the Army. A large portion of the surgeons that were employed during the war received but $100 per month.

I agree with the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs that veterinary surgeons are necessary in the cavalry service. Such regiments when mounted cannot well do without them. And I agree that the Government has not paid enough for such officers. During the fore part of the war they only received, I believe, the pay of sergeant major. Latterly they were paid seventy-five dollars per month. I think $100, which is half way between seventyfive dollars and $125, will command the service of veterinary surgeons certainly as well as $100 will command the services of surgeons qualified to take charge of hospitals. I therefore move that amendment.

Mr. HALE. I wish to submit to the chairman of the committee whether a horse doctor ought to have better pay than a doctor of men. The assistant surgeon of the Army is the medical officer of the regiment, and he gets a less sum than this bill proposes for a horse doctor. According to the present bill his pay and allowances amount to less than $125 a month, and he ranks as lieutenant. It seems to me that a man who doctors horses ought not to be paid more than one who attends to the cure of the ills of the human race.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. ROSS. I move that this bill be recommitted to the Committee on Military Affairs, with instructions to remodel and reform the bill so as to reduce the Army to a number not exceeding forty thousand men.

Mr. Speaker, I do not profess to be well versed in military affairs. But I have been unable to see the necessity of so large a standing army as that provided by the bill reported by the committee. It is very expensive to maintain so large an army in the field. And I do not regard such an army as being in consonance with the theory of our institutions. Our dependence for defense is not upon a standing army. In case of an invasion of our country, or any infraction of our rights, our reliance has always been upon the volunteers who respond promptly to the call of the Government for the purpose of repelling invasion and maintaining our rights.

I have not heard from any gentleman the necessity for fastening upon a people already burdened and borne down by the weight of taxation the enormous expense of a large standing army. I would be glad if some member of the Military Committee, or some other member of the House who may be conversant with the subject, would inform us as to the expense of keeping a regiment in the field. I know that last year there was testimony taken before the Committee on Territories in relation to the expense of keeping a regiment of cavalry in the Indian country. And military men testified before that committee that the entire expense of keeping a regiment of cavalry in service in that country was $2,000,000 per annum. Of course it would not be so expensive to maintain a regiment in other parts of the country.

Sir, I cannot give my consent to burden the people of this country with further taxation for this purpose, unless there is more apparent necessity for it than any which I have been able to discover, and therefore I have moved, and I trust such may be the opinion of this House, that this bill be recommitted with instructions to remodel and refashion its provisions in accordance with what I have suggested.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. SCHENCK. If the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FARNSWORTH] thinks $1,200 is enough, I am not desirous of disputing the matter with him, but will leave it to the House. Only I say that the present compensation is insufficient, and that if we appoint men fit for the places we must give them more than they are now receiving.

Mr. COBB. I desire to ask the chairman of the committee a question, and it is a question which I wish at this time to submit to that committee, who are presenting to us an entirely new bill for the organization of the Army. I would inquire whether it is not desirable, in framing such a bill as this, to change the whole system of compensation, doing away with the complicated machinery of allowances and rations. I would like to know of the chairman of the committee, or of some one competent to answer it, whether it is not possible to frame a bill which shall dispense entirely with this complicated system of compensation.

Mr. SCHENCK. In reply to the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. COBB,] I will say that in my view just such legislation is needed. And it is in consequence of that conviction that I have reported, with the authority of the Military Committee to back me, a bill to fix the compensation of the officers of the Army in an intelligible shape, and that bill he will find on his file.

After we get through this bill it may perhaps not be impolitic to move that bill as an addendum, so as to include all in one bill. This bill might be modified by striking out the words "emoluments and allowances" wherever they occur. I have not thought it advisable, however, to bring it before the House for it will be hard enough against the influences surrounding as to fight through either one of think. And I know that we shall have to rally with all the strength we can those of us who think as I do, and as I am glad to see the gentleman does, on the subject of compensation, before we can get any bill of this kind through the House against outside influence and Army influence.

I make this reply merely to satisfy the gentleman that that subject has not passed unnoticed, and that there is a bill to accomplish the very object the gentleman desires now on file. The amendment of Mr. FARNSWORTH, to strike out $125 and insert $100, was agreed to. The amendment, as amended, was agreed to. Mr. TAYLOR. I would inquire if it be in order to move to go back to section two for the purpose of amending it. It can be

The SPEAKER pro tempore. done by unanimous consent. Mr. SCHENCK. I will hear what the gentleman proposes. Mr. TAYLOR. I propose to amend by inserting in section two, after the word "artillery," the following:

That there shall be appointed a chief of artillery with the rank, pay, and emoluments of a brigadier general, who shall have charge, under the direction of the War Department, of all matters pertaining to the artillery arm of the service.

Mr. SCHENCK. I object to going back for the purpose of allowing that amendment. Mr. TAYLOR. I would inquire if it will be in order at any stage of the bill to intro

duce this amendment.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not at the present moment prepared to answer that question. Mr. TAYLOR. I will withdraw it, and move hereafter to add it as a new section. That I am told I can do.

I have no disposition to protract debate upon this question. I desired merely to express my opinion upon the subject. And I shall be glad, a number shall coincide with me, to be permitted to record our votes in favor of an Army of not exceeding forty thousand men in time of peace.

Mr. ROGERS. I have not hitherto participated in any manner in the debate on this bill. But I have been unable, by any examination I can give it, to see what necessity there is at this time for any such law at all as this. I have had no satisfactory reason shown to me that there is any insufficiency in the Army as now organized, and as it has been organized since the foundation of the Government, under the old system and by virtue of the principles upon which it has been organized.

I entirely agree with the honorable gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ross] as to the impropriety at this time of keeping a large standing army. It was the wisdom of our fathers, and they gave it out to their children as a settled axiom in American history, that large standing armies in time of peace were not only dangerous to liberty, but they involved the country in heavy and enormous expenses. And during the whole period of our political and national history, from the first formation of the Army of this country down to this time, I believe at no time, when the country was not involved in war, have we had an Army to exceed the maximum of twenty-five or thirty thousand men.

Now, after we have gone through this rebellion, and marshaled armies more gigantic and enormous, perhaps, than any that ever were marshaled upon the fields of this country, and I might say upon any other since civilization began, what necessity is there to change the organization of the Army which existed during all that period. When the first tocsin of war was sounded, we found men so ready through our volunteer system that it was but a short time before we had a million men in the field,

able to put down the most gigantic rebellion that ever raised its hydra head upon any continent, and to subdue any army ever marshaled on earth.

Sir, when this war began, a proclamation was issued by President Lincoln, calling for seventy-five thousand men, for the purpose of putting down the rebellion, thus illustrating. the esteem and consideration with which the people of this country have regarded small standing armies. It had long been settled in the minds of the people that a large standing army was not necessary; and although when that call was made the regular Army of our nation numbered only fifteen or twenty thousand men, the hills and the valleys poured out like water men who were ready at a moment's call to march forth in defense of their country's cause, and assist in putting down the fearful rebellion which has so recently closed.

Sir, I am satisfied from the experience of the country during the last seventy-five years that there never was a time in our history when the situation of this country required a smaller army than is necessary at the present time. There is no danger of any more civil commotions; there is no danger of any further rebellion. The power of the Government has been maintained. Our Government has shown itself to be formidable and omnipotent. It has demonstrated that it is abundantly able to put down any rebellion. It has shown itself strong enough to cope successfully with any army which may be raised against it, whether marshaled in this country or any other.

Sir, an army of such numbers as we had before the rebellion will be sufficient hereafter for all practical purposes. There is no necessity that, at a time when the people are already groaning under the onerous burden of taxation, they should be subjected to still Leavier burdens to support in time of peace an army of seventy-five or eighty thousand men. Sir, as soon as you adopt the doctrines of the monarchists of the Old World and establish in this country the system of maintaining a large standing army in time of peace, that very moment you menace liberty and destroy one of the foundation principles of our republican institutions.

In reference to this question of a standing army, I am willing to stand by the doctrines of Washington and Jefferson and Madison, and the other founders of our Government, who have bequeathed to us the principle that standing armies in times of peace are dangerous to republican institutions. A republican Government must rest for its foundation upon the consent and affection of the people. Their patriotism must be relied upon as its sure defense in the hour of peril. Large standing armies are simply a menace to popular liberty. Mr. GRINNELL. Will the gentleman yield to me one moment for a question?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRINNELL. How large does the gentleman understand the Army to be now, and to what number would he have it reduced?

Mr. ROGERS. I do not know how large the Army is now. I am not prepared to say. I am not very well versed in military affairs. But I am prepared to say that I am for reducing the Army to as low a standard as is consistent with the preservation of the peace of the country-as low a standard as has been necessary at any time within the last twentyfive years.

Mr. GRINNELL. How low?

Mr. ROGERS. Fifteen or twenty thousand. Forty thousand as proposed by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ross] would be a very liberal allowance indeed, and would certainly be as large an army as the tax-burdened people of this country should be called on to maintain in time of peace. Such is the patriotism and courage of our people that they can always be relied on to come forward as volunteers in overwhelming numbers to vanquish any foe, whether from without or within, and to maintain the honor and integrity of the country. Mr. GRINNELL. I desire to inquire of the

gentleman whether he would, in this or any future emergency, enlist the Fenians.

Mr. ROGERS. I do not know whether we can enlist the Fenians. Ithink that the Fenians are able to take care of themselves. I suppose that the gentleman, if he has any love of liberty, will, in common with all other men who rejoice to see republics established everywhere, give his sympathy and aid to the Fenians in their effort to throw off the yoke of tyranny with which England has oppressed the Irish people for the last seven hundred years.

I suppose the gentleman has not yet forgotten we were once under the tyranny and bondage of England. I hope he has not forgotten we spurned the right of taxation assumed by Great Britain, that we proclaimed our inde pendence, that our forefathers spilled their blood in defense of their freedom; and I trust that gentlemen will now sympathize with the downtrodden people of Ireland who are making the same effort to relieve themselves from the same despotism of England.

But, sir, this country is not England. It is a republic. It is one which exists in the sympathy and love of the people. It is bound together by the iron bands of affection, which can never be broken or rent asunder. There is no necessity, therefore, existing in this free country to keep officers in pay at thousands of dollars a year, who have nothing to do in a time of peace except to lounge about the country.

Why, Mr. Speaker, our taxes are now burdening us down. We have a national debt of $3,000,000,000. That is exclusive of the debts of the States, of perhaps $1,000,000,000 more. It is the bounden duty of the people to pay every dollar of that debt. Let us keep our faith and obligation with the people with whom we contracted this debt. Let us bend our energies in such way that the resources of the country will come under our command freely, from the hearts of the people, without resistance on their part or oppression on ours. And it is mainly on the ground that this adds enormously to our expenses that I am opposed to it. The idea of allowing it to be in the power of any person who may be at the head of our military establishment, or of the President of the United States, a corrupt or ambitious man if you please, to control so vast a standing army, is radically wrong. He may use it to control the affairs of the Government and to accomplish the objects of his personal ambition like some of the leaders in ancient Rome and elsewhere. It is dangerous to the liberties of the people. It is introducing an element into the Government which in the end will prostrate the best interests of the whole country.

There is no necessity for it. No gentleman, so far as I have heard, has been able to show any necessity for an increase of our standing Army.

Let me say there never were better rules and regulations established for the army of any country than those established by our fathers for the Army of this country. That Army has been marshaled and successfully sustained and upheld under those rules and regulations. Those regulations have been accorded by the people of the old continent in reference to military government to be as perfect in theory and application as those of any country in the world.

Debate is

The SPEAKER pro tempore.
exhausted.

Mr. SCHENCK. I demand the previous
question on the motion to recommit.
The previous question was seconded and the
main question ordered.

Mr. ROSS demanded the yeas and nays.
The House divided; and there were-ayes
sixteen, noes not counted.

Mr. ROSS demanded tellers on the yeas and

same rights that I am. When he speaks on any question he never finds me slurring him for what he says. Although I may not say what will suit the other side of the House, I speak the honest dictates of an honest heart and the views I entertain, and I do not like to be abused for my honest convictions by any gentleman upon the other side of the House.

Mr. BLAINE. The gentleman from New Jersey says that I have taken occasion whenever he has spoken to say something indecorous or unbecoming. Yet he cites only two occasions in which I have offered any remarks about him. If he will remember how frequently he has addressed this House, and can only remember those two occasions, he must see that there must have been a good many times when I have not referred to him at all. Now, I never have had the slightest unkind feeling toward the gentleman from New Jersey in my life. Two or three weeks ago, on a Monday morn

The motion to recommit was disagreed to. Mr. ROGERS. Imove to amend by adding a provision that the Army at no time shall exceed thirty thousand men; and I move that amendment for the purpose of occupying the attention of the House for about three minutes. Mr. SCHENCK. I rise to a point of order, that the provision that the Army at no time shall exceed thirty thousand men has nothing to do with this section. I not only make the point of order, but I appeal

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois demanded the yeas and naysing, by means of a mere accident in parliaand tellers on the yeas and nays, but on a mentary rule, which happens perhaps once in division there were not enough to order either twenty-five years, the gentleman had an opporthe tellers or the yeas and nays. tunity to exhaust the whole morning hour in a debate in which neither himself nor any other member of the House was interested, and I appealed to the gentleman personally to yield the floor, inasmuch as there were many gentlemen on this side of the House who had resolutions to offer not resolutions of a political character, but of a business nature, which could only be introduced under the call of States on alternate Mondays. The gentleman agreed that he would not take more than twenty minutes, but then he continued for the entire hour; and in the heat of the moment I made some remarks that

Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman will not find fault with me if he will permit me to go on.

Mr. SCHENCK. Yes, we will have the same old speech over again. [Great laughter.] The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair overrules the point of order.

Mr. ROGERS. I offer this amendment more for the purpose of vindicating myself, than anything else, from the malicious assaults which the honorable gentleman from the State of Maine [Mr. BLAINE] has made it his business to make upon me every time I have got up to say anything in this House. I suppose that he knows very well that during the remarks which I made on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois I confined myself strictly to the question before the House. This House will bear me witness in saying that in no arguments which I make before this House do I digress from the subject under debate, and that I always confine myself strictly to the subject before the House. I make no general speeches; no Saturday speeches. I mean no disrespect to anybody else, but I think I ought to be treated with common respect, at least, by the gentleman from Maine when I get up to address the House.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. BLAINE. I beg the gentleman from Illinois to withdraw his proposition. When this bill was reported from the Committee on Military Affairs and taken up for consideration it was agreed that we should go through it section by section, giving a liberal allowance of fifteen minutes to each member for debate, so that the measure could be perfected. Propositions like the one now pending interjected in this way will, of course, only give rise to this sloshy-washy debate. I appeal to the gentleman to withdraw his proposition.

Mr. ROSS. I regret I cannot comply with the gentleman's request.

nays.

The House divided; and there were-ayes seventeen, noes not counted.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Tellers are not ordered, and the yeas and nays are not ordered.

Mr. ROSS. I rise to a question of order. I understand when one side of the House is counted we have a right to have the other side counted.

When my resolutions, over which I had no control, came up a week or two since, I had the floor, and the Speaker of the House told the House the reasons why I was entitled to the floor, and because I would not yield the right which I then had the gentleman from Maine got up and abused me and treated me in a most shameful and indecorous manner; in such a manner as I would treat no member either on this side of the House or on the other. The House will bear me witness of the truth that I always treated gentlemen upon all sides of this House with the utmost courtesy. Nobody has known me to get up and browbeat and abuse any member because he did not agree with me. God made us so that our natures are different, and we arrive at different conclusions, and I think it is most contemptible and indiscreet work on the part of the gentleman, when I undertake to discuss any subject, to attempt to browbeat me and insult me. In what I have said I have no ill-feeling toward the gentleman at all. I hold him in high respect. I believe him to be a gentleman, and shall always treat him with courtesy. All that I ask of him is that he shall treat me in the same way. He is a member on the other side of the House, and he is only entitled to the

were hasty and unbecoming, as I have since thought. If I thereby wounded the gentleman in any way I am very sorry for it; and I will say in addition, that I have none but the kindliest feeling for him personally. He has always treated me with respect, and I desire to treat him in the same way.

Mr. ROGERS.

That is sufficient.

Mr. STEVENS. I rise to a question of order. I desire to know to what part of this section this debate applies. [Laughter.]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not yet advised.

Mr. ROGERS. I want but a moment more. Mr. SCHENCK. If the gentlemen have exhausted their reasons for reducing the Army, I will move the previous question.

Mr. ROGERS. Wait until my fifteen minutes are through, if you please.

Mr. SCHENCK. Very well.

Mr. ROGERS. I ask but a moment more. The gentleman from Maine says that my argu ments upon the resolutions which I offered had interest neither for the House nor for myself nor anybody else. [Laughter.]

The gentleman is mistaken about that; it was a very important question, and I presume the House will remember that when first I came here, I think in the first week or in the second, I offered a joint resolution which was referred to the Judiciary Committee, to authorize the States to tax United States securities, and the remarks which I made were therefore entirely pertinent to the question before the House. Mr. SCHENCK. I must really rise to a question of order.

Mr. ROGERS. It is not necessary. I with draw my amendment.

Mr. VAN AERNAM. I move to amend the section by inserting at the end of it the following proviso:

Provided further, That officers of the same grade above the rank of first lieutenant, who shall be appointed under the provisions of this section, shall have their rank determined by their last previous rank, whether in the volunteer service or not.

Mr. SCHENCK. I hope the gentleman from New York will not put that on a section with which it has nothing to do whatever. This section relates to a cavalry force. His amendment refers to an entirely different and separate question. I suggest that he add it to the bill as a separate section, otherwise we shall make this bill a piece of unmeaning patchwork. Mr. VAN AERNAM. The only way in

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

portion of the proposed army which must prove
the least efficient, namely, the Veteran Reserve
corps and the colored regiments.

As respects the Veteran Reserve corps, I
agree with the remarks made on last Friday
by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. DAVIS.]
I think the country owes to the disabled Union
officers and soldiers of the late war a reason-
able support, but not in the Army. I shall
always be found ready to vote to the maimed
heroes of the war liberal provision in the shape
of pensions, but I am not in favor of providing
for ten regiments of disabled soldiers as a part
of the Army of the United States.

As for the colored regiments, I believe they can perform no military duties which could not better be performed by white men. They are not wanted as soldiers at the North, and at the South they would prove a continual source of irritation, complaint, and disquiet. On the Mr. DAVIS. I did not get it high enough. Indian frontiers they would be less efficient Mr. SCHENCK. A half million too high. than white soldiers, for their fear of Indians is Mr. DAVIS. I am satisfied I got it too low. proverbial. I maintain that to the white men I desire to increase the sum named, and to say of the United States rightfully belongs the gov that the pay proper of these regiments will ernment of the country in peace and its defense cost the Government $1,800,000 per annum And if the time should ever come if the organization shall reach only the minwhen they are no longer equal to the perform-imum provided for. That is for their pay ance of these duties the hour of our national dissolution will have arrived.

in war.

which I could offer it appropriately would be to move to strike out the whole section and insert this in lieu of it.

Mr. SCHENCK. This section applies to an organization of six new cavalry regiments to be added to the six now in the service, and this general military legislation, intended to apply to all officers of all arms of the service, is incongruous with this part of the bill. I hope the gentleman will so far aid the committee in perfecting the bill as to reserve his motion and offer it as a distinct section at a later period. Mr. VAN AERNAM. If that will conduce to the convenience of the Committee on Military Affairs I will withdraw my amendment for the present, and offer it at another time. The amendment was withdrawn.

[blocks in formation]

This bill, as interpreted by the chairman of the Military Committee, provides for an army of fifty thousand men, but with an organization capable of expansion to eighty-two thousand six hundred men. That is, there are to be regiments organized and officers appointed sufficient for an army of eighty-two thousand six hundred strong, and the President is to have the authority to recruit it to its maximum strength whenever in his discretion he may decide that the exigencies of the service require it. To this large increase of the regular Army as a peace establishment I desire to record my opposition. I have great respect for the opinion of the able and patriotic chairman of the Military Committee, who has told us that he had been in favor of a still greater increase. I have also, in common with the whole country, profound respect for the military judgment of the Lieutenant General, who, we are told, has expressed himself in favor of the enlargement of the standing Army to the extent contemplated by this bill. Still I cannot bring myself to see its necessity.

No one, I suppose, will contend that a larger standing army should be maintained in time of peace than the exigencies of the country require. Now, what exigencies do exist which require such an army as is provided by this bill as a permanent peace establishment? The rebellion is over. At least there is not a man now in arms against the Government in any part of the country. The President has proclaimed peace. The late rebellious States are submissively and patiently waiting at the doors of Congress for peaceful recognition in the reestablished Union, the authority of which none of them any longer disputes. The Indian frontier is quiet, and likely to need less force to keep it so than was heretofore required. There is no immediate danger of a foreign war, and if such an occasion were to arise half a million of volunteers could be raised in thirty days, either for defense or invasion. During the present generation, at least, our volunteer forces would not be found wanting either in disciplined men or experienced officers. Why, then, shall we now provide for a standing army of over eighty thousand men? Upon the general principle, then, that a larger standing army than the exigency demands is not in accordance with the nature or safety of our institutions, and also upon the ground of public economy, I move the amendment which I have offered. If it should prevail it will save over eight millions a year to the country, and still leave an army which, when raised to its maximum standard, will number over sixty thousand men. I think the reduction can best be made by striking off that

I entertain no expectation that this amendment will prevail because from our past experience we know that when the majority of this House have once got hold of the negro upon any question they never surrender him from their embraces, but I have moved this amendment and I shall endeavor to get a record vote upon it. I demand the yeas and nays upon my amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 16, nays 79, not voting 88; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Boyer, Brandegee, Chanler, Eld-
ridge, Finck, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Grider, Aaron
Harding, Edwin N. Hubbell, Niblack, Nicholson,
Ritter, Rogers, Shanklin, and Sitgreaves-16.

NAYS-Messrs. Ames, Baker, Baldwin, Baxter,
Benjamin. Bidwell, Blaine, Boutwell, Buckland,
Bundy, Coffroth, Conkling. Davis, Defrees, Deming,
Donnelly, Eckley, Eliot, Grinnell, Hale, Abner C.
Harding, Henderson, Hill, Holmes, Hulburd, James
M. Humphrey, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kelley,
Kelso, Ketcham, Kuykendall, Latham, George V.
Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, Marston, Marvin,
McClurg, McKee, McRuer, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead,
Morris, Moulton, Myers, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Perham,
Phelps, Price, William H. Randall, John H. Rice,
Rollins, Ross, Schenck, Shellabarger. Spalding, Ste-
vens, Thayer, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas,
Thornton, Trowbridge, Upson, Robert T. Van Horn,
Ward. Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn,
William B. Washburn, Welker, Wentworth, Wil-
liams, James F. Wilson, and Woodbridge-79.

Now, among the reasons which I beg leave to assign for this amendment is, in the first place, the vastly increased expense to be entailed upon the Government by the organization of ten additional regiments which under no circumstances can perform more than one half the duty of the same number of efficient and able-bodied men. I had occasion to state on Friday last the expense to which these ten additional regiments will subject the Govern ment in the way of their organization, equipment, and maintenance. I stated that if only the minimum of these regiments was organized the expense for the pay proper alone of the officers and men would be nearly nine hundred thousand dollars a year.

EVENING SESSION DISPENSED WITH.

Mr. WARD. I move that the evening ses-
sion for to-day be dispensed with.
The motion was agreed to.
REORGANIZATION OF THE ARMY-AGAIN.
Mr. DAVIS. I move to amend this fourth
section by striking out the words "of ten regi-
ments to be raised and officered as hereinafter
provided for, to be called the Veteran Reserve
corps."

I make this motion from no desire whatever
to do wrong or injustice to any man who has
served gallantly in the armies of the Republic.
But I do it because as a legislator, responsible
in some degree for the enactments that may be
passed here, I believe it my duty to make this
motion to amend.

Mr. SCHENCK. Yes, and the gentleman missed the correct figures in his estimation by just half a million dollars.

alone.

|

Now, when you come to add to that their equipment, maintenance, &c., you will see that we are rolling up an immense indebtedness. And for what? For the purpose of furnishing employment to men who have been disabled in the service; and that kind of employment which, for the interest of the Government, should be performed only by able and efficient

men.

Now, I submit that any man, who under any circumstance will enlist in this Veteran Reserve corps, can, with a moderate and reasonable pension from the Government, obtain a competent support by adding thereto some employment which he will be able to perform in some walk of private life. Therefore it will be doing no wrong to these men if we pay them the pensions to which they are entitled, if we give them the encouragement which we ought by our liberality, and then say to them, "Although we deal liberally with you in consequence of your past services, we do not feel bound to pay you full pay as officers in this organization." I believe there is no principle of justice or propriety which demands it.

I believe that the interests of this country require that we should strike out this clause entirely. It is well known that if you take ten regiments of disabled troops and put them into any service where efficiency and activity are required, they cannot do more than one-half the service which efficient and able-bodied men can perform.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ancona,
Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Banks,
Barker, Beaman, Bergen, Bingham, Blow, Bromwell,
Broomall, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb,
Cook, Cullom, Culver, Darling, Dawes, Dawson, Del-
ano, Denison, Dixon, Dodge, Driggs, Dumont, Eg-
gleston, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, Garfield, Gris-
wold, Harris, Hart, Hayes, Higby, Hogan, Hooper,
Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard,
Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, James R. Hub-
bell, James Humphrey, Johnson. Jones, Kasson,

McCullough,
Newell, Pat-
terson, Pike, Plants, Pomeroy, Radford, Samuel J.
Randall, Raymond, Alexander H. Rice, Rousseau,
Sawyer, Scofield, Sloan, Smith, Starr, Stilwell, Strouse,
Taber, Taylor, Trimble, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn,
Warner, Whaley, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, Win-
field, and Wright-88.

Now, sir, I think that the striking out of the provision for these ten regiments will be proper. I do not believe that to reduce by ten regiments the Army proposed by this bill will be any injury to this Government. Throughout our previous Kerr, Laflin, William Lawrence, Le Blond, Marshall, history, we have at all times been able to preserve the peace of the country with an army far fewer in numbers than that now proposed; and although I admit that there is a necessity for a larger force at present, in consequence of the increased extent of our country and the peculiar condition of affairs now existing in some portions of it, yet I am not ready to say that such an army as we would have if these ten regiments should be stricken out, an army capable of being raised to seventy-two thousand seven hundred men, would not be sufficient to meet all the demands of the Government. I trust, therefore, that my amendment will be adopted.

So the amendment was not agreed to.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I remember, Mr. Speaker, when the Veteran Reserve corps was organized; and I remember, too, that at that time it was understood that that organization was to be a permanent one. When the men who now compose that organization, or so much of it as is left, had so far recovered from wounds and disabilities incurred in active service that they believed themselves fit for the military duty assigned to this corps, they ap

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »