Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση
[ocr errors]

many men in the field as they may think necessary and proper, with regard to the exigencies of the service and the condition of the country. But I would not allow organizations to go into the field in a skeleton capacity. The effect would be you would have a full quota of officers all the time, but you would not have the men to do the duty. You want a company of one hundred men to garrison a fort, take care of the guns and other public property. If you put these skeleton regiments into the field you will have to take four companies to make up these one hundred men, while you will have fifteen or sixteen officers to pay instead of two or three.

Supposing that to be the fact, I submit that, if we put in the field companies numbering only fifty men each, they will at the end of six months have dwindled down to companies of twenty-five or thirty-thirty at most, probably twenty-five, perhaps not more than twenty; because, sir, the volunteer organization of the Army was not depleted to any great extent by desertions; but this is not a fact in regard to the regular Army, in which desertion has been 1 crying evil, order after order having been issued for the arrest of deserters from the regular Army.

Now, supposing that there should be a diminution at the rate of forty per cent. in seven months, as there was with the troops furnished in 1862, we should, under this bill, have our companies reduced in a period of half a year to twenty-three or twenty-four men. Thus our Army would become a great skeleton without vital organization fitting for performing efficiently the functions of an army. Such an army would simply eat the substance of the people without rendering any valuable service.

any

I submit that, as it is contrary to the spirit and habits of the better part of our people, including the agriculturists and the sons of agriculturists, to enlist in the regular Army, it would be impossible, under the circumstances, to keep these companies full. I have seen a note from the Adjutant General's Office, stating that between October, 1864, and January, 1866, there had been only about thirty-nine thousand men enlisted into the regular Army.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. VAN AERNAM. Yes, sir. Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. The bill, as it stands, provides that the number of privates in a company may be increased to one hundred, at the discretion of the President. Does the gentleman offer his amendment because he cannot trust the President?

Mr. VAN AERNAM. I offer the amendment because I believe it improper to allow a company to be organized with less than one hundred men. If you allow companies to be organized with a smaller number, your Army will be a mere skeleton without any muscle. You will have an army composed simply of officers and drummers-an army that may be fitted to illustrate the "pomp and circumstance of war," but which will be incompetent for efficient service in any exigency.

Mr. SCHENCK. I have very little to say in regard to this amendment. But I deem it impolitic and certainly not economical to keep the Army all the time up to its maximum. The effect of the gentleman's amendment, striking out "fifty" and inserting "one hundred," would be to keep the companies all the time at their maximum. It would organize at once an Army of eighty thousand men. I hope the amendment will not prevail.

Mr. FARQUHAR. I desire to ask the gentleman from Ohio, if he will permit me, whether the effect of the bill would not be to increase the number of regiments just one half, and thus increase in the same proportion the number of

officers?

I apprehend it is not a matter of economy. It is not just to the people of the country to keep up officers when there are no men to perform the service. If fifty thousand men be needed let them be furnished in full companies and not in skeleton companies. I tell you if you adopt the provision for these skeleton companies, you will have an army of officers and musicians and no one to do duty.

Mr. SCHENCK. It would not have that effect without further regulations.

Mr. FARQUHAR. If you make a company consist of fifty, instead of one hundred, do you not thereby increase the number of officers just one half?

[blocks in formation]

YEAS-Messrs. Ames, Anderson, Baker. Banks, Beaman, Sidney Clarke, Coffroth, Conkling, Dawes, Donnelly, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, Finck, Grider, Abner C. Harding, Henderson, Hulburd, Kelley, George V. Lawrence, Marshall, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Morris, Niblack, Perham, John H. Rice, Ross, Rousseau, Scofield, Shellabarger, Smith, Spalding, Strouse, Francis Thomas, Thornton, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Warner, Henry D. Wasban, William B. Washburn, Windom, and Wright-45. NAYS-Messrs. Allison, Ancona, Baxter, Benjamin, Bingham, Blaine, Boutwell, Boyer, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Cook, Dixon, Driggs, Eggleston, Garfield, Glossbrenner, Hale, Hayes, Hogan, Holmes, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, James M. Humphrey, Julian, Kasson, Ketcham, Kuykendall, Latham, Loan, Longyear, Lynch, Marston, Marvin, MeClurg, McRuer, Moulton, Myers, Nicholson, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Patterson, Phelps, Price, Ritter, Rollins, Schenck, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Stevens, Taber, Taylor, Thayer, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Elihu B. Washburne, Welker, Wentworth,.Williams, James F. Wilson, and Woodbridge-65.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Alley, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baldwin, Barker, Bergen, Bidwell, Blow, Brandegee, Cobb, Cullom, Culver, Darling, Davis, Dawson, Defrees, Delano, Deming, Denison, Dodge, Dumont, Eckley, Eldridge, Eliot, Goodyear, Grinnell, Griswold, Aaron Harding, Harris, Hart, Higby, Hill, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Edwin N.Hubbell, James R. Hubbell, James Humphrey, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Johnson, Jones, Kelso, Kerr, Laflin, William Lawrence, Le Blond, McCullough, McIndoe, McKee, Morrill, Newell, Nocll, Pike, Plants, Pomeroy, Radford, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Raymond, Alexander H.Rice, Rogers, Sawyer, Sloan, Starr, Stilwell, John L. Thomas, Trimble, Burt Van Horn, Whaley, Stephen F. Wilson, and Winfield-73.

So the amendment was disagreed to.

The Clerk read the next section, as follows: SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That the adjutants, quartermasters, and commissaries of infantry regiments shall be mounted officers; and that all regimental adjutants, quartermasters, and commissaries shall be paid, in addition to their other proper allowances, as first lieutenants and mounted officers, ten dollars per month, as compensation for their greater care and responsibility; and officers of the line detailed to act as regimental quartermasters or commissaries, or as quartermasters or commissaries of permanent posts, or of commands of not less than two compa

Mr. SCHENCK. The officers are the same.

The expansion is to be by filling up the regi- nies, shall, when the assignment is duly reported to

ments as occasion may require, but to keep the Army down to the lowest practicable point with regard to numbers in time of peace.

and approved by the War Department, receive as extra compensation while responsible for Government property, ten dollars per month.

Mr. VAN AERNAM. I desire to say a word or two in addition to what I have already said on this subject.

Mr. VAN AERNAM. I move to strike out the word "commissaries" in the second and fourth lines.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. VAN AERNAM. I move to strike out after the word "officers" in the third line, these words:

It has been demonstrated, during this rebellion, that our people are not much inclined to enlist in the regular Army; they prefer to enlist in volunteer organizations. In reference to the organization of this Army, I would consult the views of the Secretary of War and the Lieutenant General, and allow them to have just as

And that all regimental adjutants and quartermasters shall be paid, in addition to their other proper allowances as first lieutenants and mounted officers, ten dollars per month, as compensation for their greater care and responsibility; and officers of the

line detailed to act as regimental quartermasters or

commissaries, or as quartermasters or commissaries

of permanent posts, or of commands of not less than two companies, shall, when the assignment is duly reported to and approved by the War Department, receive as extra compensation while responsible for Government property, ten dollars per month.

I do not see why these officers should have an easy time in comparison with the officers of the line.

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I should be in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. VAN AERNAM] if it did not render the section incongruous with the general scope of this bill. The section proposes to increase the number of officers and the expense of the Army without increasing its efficiency.

It is provided in this bill that these quartermasters and adjutants, when they have any public property in their possession, shall have ten dollars extra because of the responsibility which is devolved upon them, Now, what in Heaven's name has a quartermaster to do but to take public property and take care of it? There is not a regiment in the service to-day but what can find forty capable privates who have served for years who are competent for that position and who would be glad to obtain it. There is scarcely a wounded volunteer in the Army that is not capable of performing, in time of peace, all the duties and responsibilities which devolve by military law upon the office of quartermaster or adjutant. They are both very genteel berths, much sought after by young men of distinguished families. They are soft places, and can be made use of to get glory without danger.

may

Now, sir, except so far as I feel bound to keep up the principle of this bill, and make it what it is designed to be, I shall not vote for a provision for the benefit of gentlemen who have political influence enough to get into the Army to live easy. My policy would be to have simply an efficient army for police duty in time of peace, and not have an officer or a man beyond the actual needs of the service. I would not create a standing army in anticipation of a war in the future. It is the last source to which I would look for security to liberty or law. A standing army is the engine and contrivance of monarchy and tyranny. It is the school in which despotism is learned; and if you keep up a large standing army in this country for a few years, schooled as standing armies usually are, you will find a large overshadowing institution, which is alien to the sentiments of freedom, virtue, and intelligence in the people.

Sir, I recollect at the beginning of the late war that a large proportion of the Army which we had nourished and educated, as we supposed, in harmony and sympathy with the great sentiment which has since put down that rebellion, deserted our flag and went over to the enemy. Notwithstanding their discipline and education at West Point they turned against this country. And those who remained in some instances and performed good service in the field, hesitated, if we are not misinformed, as to which side they should take.

Mr. GARFIELD. Will the gentleman allow me to ask a question?

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. Yes, sir. Mr. GARFIELD. Does the gentleman know of a single enlisted man in the old Army in 1861, or thereafter, who deserted and went over to the rebellion? And were not the desertions he speaks of confined wholly to officers?

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. Yes, sir. If I used that language I retract it. Not many of the enlisted men, I believe, deserted.

But, sir, I wish to say this: that if in the future our country encounters difficulties by reason of insurrections at home or by collision with nations abroad, our reliance will be upon the patriotism and intelligence of the people for the preservation of a Government which is a blessing to those people, a Government which does not burden them with the incubus of a standing army, making them discontented and indisposed to fight for its preservation. I will undertake to say that if we should ten years

hence have a war, it would be better and more cheaply provided for and maintained by issuing a proclamation to the freemen of this country to come forth and fight the battles in the interest of freedom and good government than by keeping up a standing army in anticipation of such an event. Hence I do not believe in the policy of providing a large standing army, and keeping it up for ten, twenty, or thirty years, for the purpose of being prepared for war. I want no great horde of officers to eat out our substance. And whatever may be the purpose and object of the bill before us, its effect, I fear, will be to create a large number of officers and to make an inefficient army. To that I am opposed.

I am willing at all times to give employment to the volunteer officers who have been serving their country during the late war, whether they happened to be wounded or not, by giving the preference to them in the selections for the public service. I am willing that they shall be employed almost exclusively in doing garrison and other light duties, which are the only duties required to be performed in time of peace. These are my general views, and I shall vote to reduce the Army to thirty thousand, or at most, forty thousand men.

PAINE] if a regiment, according to its ratio of the cost of an army will not cost the Government about a million dollars a year.

Mr. PAINE. I am not able to state the exact amount a regiment will cost the Govern

ment.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. VAN AERNAM. Would not the gentleman from Illinois deem it advisable to perfect the bill in the best possible manner, and in the end recommit it, if necessary, to do what the chairman of the Military Committee [Mr. SCHENCK] yesterday called "to lick it into shape?"

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. There is no trouble in reducing this bill to the shape the gentleman indicates. But I obtained the floor on the condition that I opposed the gentleman's amendment, and therefore I speak as if advocating the bill in its present shape.

The SPEAKER. The Chair inquired if the gentleman intended to oppose the amendment merely for the purpose of equalizing the debate. The gentleman can speak for or against the bill, as he pleases, having obtained the floor.

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SCHENCK] has referred to the generals of our armies as the authority for determining the number of troops required in time of peace. Now, we must all remember that there is some human nature in all of us. It is quite natural for the men who command the armies of the United States to desire that our Army shall make a decent show in the world; that it should at least dignify the offices they hold in connection with it. And I think myself that the policy of this bill is to make a brilliant army, one that will accord with the characters and brilliancy of the generals in command of it.

If we had a different form of government I might "go in," as the saying is, for an army of half a million men, one able to make a show before the monarchs of the world, one able to control by force the people of this country who now claim the right of self-government. But under our form of government we depend upon a virtuous and intelligent people, devoted to a support of the Government which pleases them in every respect, and which makes their yoke easy, and their burden light. Take away that resource for the protection of liberty and a free Government and you will find no protection in a standing army. It is schooled in the school of the tyrant and the monarch, and if it does not ultimately become alien to liberty and democracy, it will prove very dif ferent in this country from what it has ever proved elsewhere.

I will ask my friend from Wisconsin [Mr.

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I think that is about the cost of a regiment, taking in consideration all the pay and expenses of the officers. And more than half that expense will be incurred whether there are any privates in the regiment or not. The pay of the officers, the very machinery necessary to keep up the organization of the regiment, will cost the Government more than half that sum. Now, why should the people of this Government be taxed $80,000,000 a year for this Army? For whose benefit and for what purpose? Is it to keep down the people of Illinois? We require no such repression in that State. Is it to keep down the people anywhere in this broad country? No, sir; a virtuous public opinion is all that is required for that purpose. If you will give me one division of cavalry and one division of monnted infantry I will undertake that Grant will do the job of preserving quiet all over the Union

Mr. PAINE. I have but a single word to say in reference to the amendment of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. VAN AERNAM.] I have the highest respect for his opinion concerning this bill generally, and I am unwilling to express an opinion differing from his unless absolutely compelled to do so by my own convictions. But my observation has been that the old rule which prevailed in the regular Army when the war broke out, and which has prevailed ever since, whereby regimental quartermasters and adjutants always received ten dollars a month additional compensation for their increased responsibilities, was a rule founded in justice. I believe it is not true, as the gentleman seems to suppose, that these officers, the regimental quartermasters and adjutants, have light duties to perform compared with those that devolve upon the lieutenants of companies. On the contrary, my observation in the Army satisfied me that no officer in the Army was more severely worked than these regimental adjutants and quartermasters when they did their duty. I am not unaware that that duty is sometimes left unperformed, but I undertake to say that the post of a regimental adjutant or quartermaster, who is faithful to his duty, is no sinecure. The duty which devolves upon him is very much greater, and the responsibilities of his position are very much graver, than those which devolve upon the lieutenant of a company; for when the march was ended and the lieutenant of a company could lie down to rest, then the work of the regimental adjutant or the regimental quartermaster began; and it oftentimes lasted until morning came, and the column was ready to march again.

Now, sir, knowing that the labor and the responsibilities of these men are so much greater than those of the lieutenants, I am disposed to continue this provision-a provision which existed before the war, and has continued during the war-in this new Army bill. I am therefore opposed to the amendment of. the gentleman.

Mr. SCHENCK. I hope the amendment proposed by the gentleman from New York will not prevail. I do not desire to add anything to the reasons which have been given, drawn not only from practice, but from propriety, by the gentleman from Wisconsin who has just taken his seat; but as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. HARDING] has referred, as others have done in the course of this debate, to the immense cost of an army, and have overstated it exceedingly under a misappre hension, in consequence of not looking very closely into the figures, I desire to make a statement to the House.

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. I referred to the Committee on Military Affairs for information.

Mr. SCHENCK. I will endeavor to give

it to the gentleman. I have here the calculation of the pay proper and allowances for clothing and rations of a regiment of infantry, and the pay proper and allowances of its officers, and I find that when you add the pay and allowances of officers and enlisted men together it amounts to $128,372 19 a year. In this is not included the allowance for forage or fuel, which are drawn in kind. Of course the forage does not amount to much in the infantry, and while fuel is allowed at posts and in cities the amount is not a large one, except in the case of detailed officers on duty in cities like Washington.

Let me make the general remark that in speaking of regiments, I refer to regiments composed of fifty-five privates, artificers, and officers, the minimum organization provided for here, and not of a regiment expanded to its full number of one hundred. The additional cost in that case would be something like seventy thousand dollars in time of war, the number of officers being the same. Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. calculation include clothing?

Does that

Mr. SCHENCK. It includes clothing, rations, and everything.

Mr. HARDING, of Illinois. Does it include arms?

Mr. SCHENCK. No, sir. If the gentleman were a little patient, which no gentleman here seems to be, I was going to advance to that point. This is a specific estimate; a specific account of what is necessary to support one of these organizations.

But then an army implies bureaus, and officers detailed for duty there, commutation of quarters, artillery, horses for cavalry, and numberless other expenses in the various departments, quartermaster's, commissary's, &c., which must also all be estimated for in providing for keeping up a military establishment. Now, we happen to know what will be the aggregate annual cost of just such an army as is here proposed. It will be in round numbers $33,000,000, (I can give the exact figures, if any gentleman desires them,) without any of the reductions from the bureaus and elsewhere provided for in this bill. There are seventytwo regiments provided for, including artillery, cavalry, and infantry; and the expense of the whole seventy-two regiments, with all the artillery and all the cavalry, and all the extensive bureaus, and all the munitions of war, including powder, lead, and all else that may be required to put an army in fighting order or to keep it in time of peace in a condition ready for fighting, is but $33,000,000. How, then, is it possible that each regiment, and particularly each one of the infantry regiments (not half so expensive as cavalry regiments) shall cost half a million dollars per annum? The amendment was not agreed to.

The next section was read, as follows: SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That each regiment in the service of the United States may have a band, (as now provided by law,) and there shall be one ordnanee sergeant and one hospital steward for each military post, and the same number of post chaplains as now provided by law; and the President of the United States is hereby authorized to appoint for each national cemetery now established, or that may be established, a superintendent, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of an ordnance sergeant, to be selected from among those who were non-commissioned officers of volunteers in the Army of the United States in the late war, and who have served faithfully and been disabled while in the line of their duty.

[blocks in formation]

having regimental bands. I incline to think that the drum and fife are about the best of music; but still bands have their use with others who have more musical taste than I. These bands seem to have a very inspiriting effect at posts and with brigades or larger bodies.

I have no objection to the amendment, if it be so modified as to provide that these twenty bands shall include the band at West Point.

tent to enlist men for the service who have been wounded in the line of their duty while serving in the Army of the United States, or who have been disabled by disease contracted in such service: Provided, It shall be found, on medical inspection, that by such wounds or disability they are not unfitted for efficiency in garrison or other light duty; and such men, when enlisted, shall be assigned to service exclusively in the regiments of the Veteran Reserve corps.

Mr. PAINE. I accept the suggestion, and modify my amendment by striking out after the words "twenty bands" the words, "and no more," and by inserting in lieu thereof these words: "including the band of the Military Academy.'

21

Mr. SCHENCK. As it now stands the provision will be for twenty bands only, instead of a band for each regiment of the Army. Inasmuch as the band at West Point is now provided for I move to amend the amendment by adding at the close the words, "and the band at the Military Academy shall be placed on the same footing as other bands."

Mr. PAINE. I accept that as a modification of my amendment.

Mr. SCHENCK. I have offered this amendment for the reason that the cadets at West Point are now taxed twenty-five cents each per month to support their band. I see no reason why that deduction should be made from the pay of those young gentlemen. As that is an important military post, the headquarters of the Engi neer corps, the band at that place should be put on the same footing as the bands of all other organizations of the Army.

Mr. VAN AERNAM. I move to amend the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin so as to make the number of the bands "seventeen" instead of "twenty." This will furnish a band to each of the generals in the service, and also a band for West Point.

These bands, Mr. Speaker, are a very expensive luxury. A paymaster in the service of the United States figured out for me this morning the monthly pay of a band, and it amounts to $968. If these regimental bands be continued we shall incur an expense of more than half a million dollars a year for this extra music. I agree with the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs in thinking that the drum and the fife are the only and the true martial music. As that kind of music is already provided in the organization of the company, and of the regiment, I see no necessity for a greater number of bands than seventeen. By reducing the number of bands it would reduce the expenses $3.000 a month.

Mr. PAINE. I have no objection to reduce the number of bands to seventeen, but I should be sorry to place the amendment upon the same ground upon which he places it. I should be unwilling to graduate the number of bands according to the number of general officers. I see no connection between them. At the same time I admit the number of bands should be as small as possible consistent with the good of the service. Therefore, but not for the same reason which the gentleman gives, I accept the proposition to reduce the number of bands to seventeen.

Mr. VAN AERNAM. The gentleman from Wisconsin has mistaken me when he alleges that my idea is to graduate the number of bands by the number of general officers. My idea is to give a band to each unit. A brigade is a unit and is commanded by a brigadier general. I do not propose to furnish a band simply because a man is a general in the Army. The amendment was agreed to.

The Clerk read the next section, as follows:

SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, That all enlistments into the Army shall hereafter be for the term of three years, and that but two field officers shall be appointed to any regiment until six companies of the regiment shall have been organized, and that but two officers for each company shall be appointed until the minimum number of men has been enlisted and the regiment duly organized; but recruits may at all times be collected at the general rendezvous in addition to the number required to fill to their minimum all the regiments and companies of the Army: Provided, That such recruits shall not exceed in the aggregate three thousand men. It shall be compe

Mr. GARFIELD. I move to strike out "three" and to insert "five,' 21 so as to make the term of enlistment five years instead of three.

I have not heard the reasons of the chairman of the committee, and although I would prefer to hear them before speaking to my amendment, I will yield to him or go on myself now.

Mr. SCHENCK. I will follow the gentle

man.

Mr. GARFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I regard it as one of the greatest evils that the Army of the United States, even in the revolutionary war, the war of 1812, or in the late war, has ever been obliged to encounter, that is, these short terms of enlistment. It almost ruined us in the revolutionary war. It was almost equally damaging to the interests of the coun: try in the war of 1812. Every one knows how terrible was the result in making the terms of enlistment so short during the late war.

Ohio, when the first call was made for troops, had eighty-two thousand men offered to the Government, and they would have been offered for five years or during the war as well as for three months if called for that time, but we were only authorized to receive them for three months. The consequence was that by the time we fairly got the troops into the field they had to be mustered out. We raised twelve months' troops, and nine months' troops, and we were even guilty of the folly at one time of raising hundred days' men. I know they did good service. It was a mere accident in the war that they did good service. It was the merest accident it was not twenty-five millions of money thrown away. As a matter of fact I acknowledge they did good service.

Now, sir, we have the best material for an army ever offered to any Government in the world out of which to make an army. We have men who have had military experience crowding to get places in the Army. Let us now get an army that will last five years at least, and not after we have consolidated and crystallized it and made it an efficient body of men have it go out of service to get other men in again.

My amendment may be advocated on the score of economy. There is always some extra pay when men are mustered out at the expiration of their term of enlistment. It will be a great saving to give this extra pay at the end of a five years' enlistment instead of at the end of a three years' enlistment. You will adopt the amendment, then, from motives of economy, but more than all other reasons for the purpose of having a well disciplined and permanent army. I hope we will make the term of enlistment five years instead of three.

Mr. SCHENCK. Mr. Speaker, it is not the committee, but my colleague, [Mr. GARFIELD,] that proposes to change the custom; for the present term of service is three years. The gentleman proposes to carry it back to what it was at the commencement of the war in the

regular Army. Now, I am not able, without reference to the military law, to tell precisely the date of the change in the law from three years' to five years' service.

by the gentleman in reference to the experiences that men acquire in the service and the advantage of having old soldiers. He only concurs in the opinion of every officer who speaks on the subject. If it were left to the officers themselves to settle the question, they would require men to serve ten years instead of five.

Mr. GARFIELD. In 1862, I think. Mr. SCHENCK. That was from five to three. The experience acquired by our fathers in the Revolution led them, in 1790 and 1791, and thereafter by successive enactments, to fix the term of enlistment at three years, and it was only some few years before the late rebellion that the term was prolonged to five years. What the committee proposes now is, that having changed it from five years to three in 1862, we shall keep it as it is.

There is much force in the argument used

But when you come to legislate upon this matter you must take into consideration the character of our people, the kind of men we propose to fill up the ranks of the Army with. The question then becomes one of politics, or of political economy, and all that relates to the industrial pursuits of our people have to be taken into consideration as well as the question of simply getting good veteran soldiers.

Now, sir, our Army is to be made up of men drawn from all the walks of life. Young farmers, journeymen mechanics, and young men who have not yet settled themselves in any particular pursuit, form the great body of the Army, and by far its best material. And I undertake to say that three years carved out of the life of a young American belonging to either of these classes is equal to about ten years taken out of the slow life of a European. I mean to say that our young men are not willing as a body to give five years of their time to the service of the country, while hundreds and thousands of the very same young men might be willing to dedicate three years to this military work.

Take a young farmer eighteen years of age. He wants to see something of the world in a new phase; he wants to look at it in a military aspect, and he is willing to enter the Army for three years, but not to spare five years of his youth for that service and come back at the age of twenty-three, twenty-four, or twenty-five to settle himself in life.

I go further than that. Though I am not given to vain-glorious praise of the people of this country, yet I believe that a young American learns more and is worth more in his three years' service than most Europeans in ten years. Our young men acquire military knowledge quicker, they have more spirit, and they perform military service better and they are more fitted even for command after three years' experience as privates than any other people on the face of the earth.

I prefer, therefore, to accommodate our legislation somewhat to the character of the people of the country, whom we expect to call upon to fill up and constitute the great body of our standing Army or of any army that we ever put into the field.

For these reasons, without dwelling upon them more at length-though much could be said, perhaps, on both sides of this questionI am not convinced of the propriety of going back to the old terms of five years, particularly when, as a part of the system, the Committee on Military Affairs, looking to legisla tion upon this subject with a view to a cure of an evil, have proposed a bill (No. 450) to reg ulate the pay and compensation of officers and soldiers of the Army. And as it may be inconvenient for gentlemen to turn to their files to look at that bill I will read one of its provisions. Section four contains this provision:

And be it further enacted, That the pay and allowances of all non-commissioned officers and enlisted men in the Army of the United States shall continuo the same as provided by the act entitled "An act to increase the pay of soldiers in the United States Army, and for other purposes," approved June 20, 1864, and by other existing laws; but hereafter each enlisted man shall, instead of any allowance for bounty, receive an increase on his pay proper of one dollar per month for each month of faithful service in the second year of his enlistment, and a further like increase of one dollar more per month for faithful service in the third year of his enlistment; and when any soldier reenlists immediately, or within ninety days after the expiration of a previous term of enlistment, it shall be counted as one continuous term of enlistment, and he shall receive from year to year additional pay at the rate of one dollar per month in each successive year that he remains in the service.

At the proper time the committee hope to have an opportunity of insisting upon that proposition, as a means of curing some of the evils.

now existing, and of elevating the character of the service, as a scheme by means of which the services of the soldiers may be secured continuously for the benefit of the Government. And though it would seem to entail a heavy additional expense upon the Government, by increasing the pay of the soldier a dollar a month for each successive year, so that he shall receive seventeen dollars a month the second year, eighteen dollars a month the third year, and nineteen dollars a month the fourth year, if he shall reënlist, and so on from year to year of service, yet it is more than compensated even upon the score of economy, as a means of getting rid of this whole difficult question of bounty hereafter, and substituting a gradual increase of pay in its stead to the faithful soldier. And I hope we shall keep the time of three years in this section.

taken from the Speaker's table, read a first and second time, and referred to the Committee for the District of Columbia.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois, moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was referred; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. The latter motion was agreed to.

REORGANIZATION OF THE ARMY-AGAIN, The House resumed the consideration of the bill for the reorganization of the Army.

The pending question was upon the motion of Mr. GARFIELD to amend the tenth section so as to make the term of enlistment five years instead of three years, as provided by the bill as reported.

Mr. GARFIELD. I desire to say a word in reply to what the chairman of the Military Committee [Mr. SCHENCK] has said in favor of three years' enlistments. He says he desires to encourage the young men of this country to go into the Army a short time, to see life, to get a taste of military life, before they enter upon what that may be very pleasant for the young men will be their permanent pursuits of life. Now, themselves; but it seems to me our true theory should be to legislate for the best interests of the Army and of the Government.

is but a part of the general principle which The suggestion of the gentleman, however, seems to be prevailing in this country, that offices and positions of any sort are a kind of gift, or rather a sort of plum-pudding, which everybody has a right to take a bite of, and when he has had his bite, some one else should be allowed to take a bite.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.

The question was put; and there were-ayes 25, noes 38; no quorum voting.

Tellers were ordered; and Messrs. ROUSSEAU and GARFIELD were appointed.

The House divided; and the tellers reported -ayes 45, noes 48.

Mr. GARFIELD demanded the yeas and nays, and called for tellers on the yeas and

nays.

Now, it occurs to me that offices and positions are rather for the benefit of the Government than especially for the benefit of classes of people. And if the principle of rotation must be adopted in oflices generally, it occurs to me that it had better not be adopted when we are organizing a great army for a great Government. For my part, I believe that this habit of encouraging our young men to dash into this little occupation and that little occupation, having no fixed purpose, is a bad one, and I would be glad to discourage them from it by making the term of service longer, so that the man who chooses the profession of arms shall go into the Army as a definite, permanent, chosen profession, and not merely for a short time. Let them go into it for the purpose of making themselves soldiers, with the purpose of rising by their merits from the ranks, if possible, to the highest positions in the Army.

We must consider, also, the immense extent of this country; we have to send men three or four thousand miles away, to points which it takes six months to reach and six months to come back from, thus using up a year in going and coming. Then it takes one year to fit them for duty, leaving, if you fix the term at three years, only one year for efficient service. I hope we shall not limit ourselves to that point.

I know that there are advantages to the persons enlisted in such a system, and feel myself to be, in some sort, a brevet member of the Committee on Military Affairs. I would always rather work with its chairman than against him. I do not believe, however, that he makes much point on this matter. I believe that by and by he will be better satisfied if we have a permanent army based on the five years' principle, which has prevailed far more in the Govern ment than the three years' principle has done. We reduced the term of service to three years merely to meet the present necessities of the Government at a time when it was difficult to get men. We found it troublesome then to get enough men who were willing to go into the service for five years. But now, when we have men in abundance who are just as ready to enter the service for five years as for three, it seems to me that we ought not to omit the opportunity to get an army for the full term of five years, and make it a great, solid, permanent body of men.

I move the previous question on my amend.

ment.

[blocks in formation]

YEAS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Anderson, Boutwell, Bundy, Chanler, Conkling, Davis, Dixon, Donnelly, Eldridge, Finck, Garfield, Glossbrenner, Hogan, Edwin N. Hubbell, James M. Humphrey, Jenckes, Kelley, Kelso, Marvin, McKee, MeRuer, Mercur, Newell, Niblack, Samuel J. Randall, Shanklin, Smith, Spalding, Taber, Taylor, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Ward, Elihu B. Washburne, Wentworth, Williams, and Woodbridge-40. NAYS-Messrs. Ancona, Baker, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Bingham, Blaine, Boyer, Broomall, Buckland, Dawes, Driggs, Eckley, Eggleston, Farquhar, Ferry, Grider, Hale, Aaron Harding, Abner C. Harding, Hayes, Holmes, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Kasson, Ketcham, Kuykendall, George V. Lawrence, Loan, Lynch, Marshall, Marston, McClurg, Miller, Morris, Nicholson, O'Neill, Paine, Patterson, Phelps, Price, John H. Rice, Ritter, Rollins, Ross, Rousseau, Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Stevens, Thayer, Thornton, Robert T. Van Horn, Warner, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn. Welker, Whaley, James F. Wilson, and Windom-61.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Alley, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baldwin, Banks, Barker, Bergen, Bidwell, Blow, Brandegee, Bromwell, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Coffroth, Cook, Cullom, Culver, Darling, Dawson, Defrees, Delano, Deming, Denison, Dodge, Dumont, Eliot, Farnsworth, Goodyear, Grinnell, Griswold, Harris, Hart, Henderson, Higby, Hill, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, James Humphrey, Ingersoll, Johnson, Jones, Julian, Kerr, Laflin, Latham, William Lawrence, Le Blond, Longyear, McCullough, MeIndoe, Moorhead, Morrill, Moulton, Myers, Noell, Orth, Perham, Pike, Plants, Pomeroy, Radford, William H. Randall, Raymond, Alexander II. Rice, Rogers, Sawyer, Sloan, Starr, Stilwell, Strouse, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Trimble, Burt Van Horn, Stephen F. Wilson, Winfield, and Wright-82.

So Mr. GARFIELD'S amendment was disa

greed to.

The Clerk read, as follows:

SEC. 11. And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States is hereby authorized to employ in the Territories and Indian country a force of Indians, not to exceed one thousand, to act as scouts, who shall receive the pay and allowances of cavalry soldiers, and be discharged whenever the necessity for their further employment is abated, or at the discretion of the department commander.. SEC. 12. And be it further enacted, That there shall be one lieutenant general, five major generals, and ten brigadier generals, who shall have the same pay and emoluments, and be entitled to the same staff officers in number and grade, as now provided by law. tant General's department of the Aripy shall hereafter SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the Adju

consist of the number of officers now authorized by law, namely, one adjutant general, with the rank, pay,

and emoluments of a brigadier general; two assist ant adjutant generals, the pay, and emoluments of colonels of cavalry; four adjutants, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of lieutenant colonels of cavalry, and thirteen adjutants, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of majors of cavalry. But after the first appointments made under the provisions of this section, as vacancies may occur in the grade of major, no appointment shall be made to fill such vacancy until the number of majors in the department shall be reduced to ten, to which number the said grade shall thereafter be limited.

Mr. GARFIELD. I desire to ask the chairman of the committee to explain to the House, before we pass from this thirteenth section, precisely what is meant by the creation of this new office of adjutant" in the staff department. I would like to know whether these officers, called "adjutants" will be eligible to promotion in the regular staff department, or whether this is a new office which is created; and if so, what is its grade? It is evidently an innovation upon the present mode of organizing that staff; and I would like to hear the reason for the change.

Mr. SCHENCK. Nothing whatever was meant by the committee except to get rid of

And in the pay

Mr. WOODBRIDGE. army, sir, in the military sense of that word. department. It will not be an army which could oppose a Mr. THAYER. And also in the pay depart-respectable mob. It will be, sir, itself but a ment. The officers holding commissions, or at mob. any rate a great part of them, in these departments of the Army are, by a few strokes of the gentleman's pen, driven out of the Army of the United States and deprived of their commissions; and he tells us in justification of a measure so sweeping as that, so indefensible and so full of injustice, that it is a mere question of words whether a man is to be called an adjutant or assistant adjutant general. Does not every man know an officer who is assistant adjutant general in the United States Army holds his commission in that capacity and holds no other commission? The rank he holds is simply incident to the office he holds, and when you abolish the office he holds you deprive him of his employment and his commission.

Is there any man in the House who has read this bill who will undertake to deny that this is the legal effect of the section under consideration? I apprehend not.

The same thing, as I have already said, will be accomplished by subsequent sections in reference to the other staff corps of the Army, if this bill shall become a law in its present shape. All these gentlemen, some of whom have been in the Army of the United States, for many years

a long, lumbering title. In reorganizing the Adjutant General's department we thought it well to drop the words "assistant adjutant general," as now applied to every officer, even of the most subordinate grade in that department, and to call these officers simply what they are, adjutants. Each regiment has its adjutant, who is known as regimental adjutant; then there are other adjutants; and at the head of them all is an Adjutant General who bears a relation upon the general staff to the Army such as adjutants of regiments do to the organizations to which they belong. We thought it unnecessary, either in the quartermaster's department or in the Adjutant General's Office, to continue forever the cumbrous titles, "assistant quartermaster" or "assistant adjutant general." In reorganizing what relates to the adjutancy of the Army, that portion of the staff through which orders issue, and which thus has the general supervision or direction, under the proper commanding officers, of whatever is done, it seemed to us entirely unnecessary to perpetuate these long titles.

The gentleman inquires whether these adjutants will be entitled to promotion as in other cases. Of course they will. They are a part of the same general department, occupying their several ranks, some as majors, some as lieutenant colonels, some as colonels; but we have restricted the title "assistant adjutant general" to the two assistants of the Adjutant General, who in his absence may be called upon to occupy temporarily his position. The provision of the bill, therefore, is for "one adjutant general, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of a brigadier general; two assistant adjutant generals, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of colonels of cavalry." Then the bill goes on to provide for "four adjutants, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of lieutenant colonels of cavalry, and thirteen adjutants, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of majors of cavalry." If this mode of simplifying the matter should not, in the opinion of members of the House, conform to good taste or propriety, they will of course correct our correction.

Mr. THAYER. I move to amend by striking out the thirteenth section, and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

And be it further enacted, That the Adjutant General's department of the Army shall hereafter consist of the officers now authorized by law, namely: one adjutant general with the rank, pay, and emoluments of a brigadier general; two assistant adjutant generals with the rank, pay, and emoluments of colonels of cavalry; four assistant adjutant generals with the rank, pay, and emoluments of lieutenant colonels of eavalry, and thirteen assistant adjutant generals with the rank, pay, and emoluments of majors of cavalry.

Mr. Speaker, what I propose as a substitute for this section is the corresponding section of the Senate bill. It leaves the present organization of the Adjutant General's department unchanged. Now, sir, I wish to say, in regard to what has fallen from the chairman of the committee, that I am surprised that he should take the view that the effect of the section as it stands in this bill is simply to change the title of an office. The effect of the alteration made by the bill before the House is really to legislate out of the Army of the United States no less than thirteen of its regular officers, and to deprive them of their commissions. Mr. HALE. Seventeen.

Mr. THAYER. Yes, sir; seventeen. There is something more than a mere matter of verbal taste in a proposal of that kind; something more than a mere preference for a par

ticular word.

Now, sir, as this is a point of the gentleman's bill where is commenced a process which, if carried out, would undermine and disorganize the whole system of the Army of the United States as it is at present organized, I desire to call the attention of the House to the changes which are initiated in the thirteenth section, now pending. The same operation which is performed by this section on the Adjutant General's department is by subsequent sections performed on the quartermaster's department and on the subsistence department.

one of them, as I know, over forty yearsofficers who have spent their lives in the service of the country, and who have greatly aided in conducting it triumphantly through the late great war, are to be condemned unheard and driven from the Army. They are not to have accorded to them even the poor privilege of being tried by the star-chamber proceeding provided for in the thirty-third section of the

bill.

By the thirty-third section the committee invite us to provide a grand council to indict the two thousand or more officers of the Army of the United States. This grand inquisition is to present them for trial before a petit jury of three officers, who, I say without hesitation, are armed by the terms of the bill with the power of conviction, but with no power of acquittal.

You do not even offer to the poor assistant adjutant generals-the seventeen you propose to immolate by this section-the chance to be presented by this grand council and tried by your petit jury of three. You turn them out of the Army without trial, without examination, nay, without accusation.

Now, the section which I propose to substitute is the corresponding provision of the Senate bill; and I propose to follow it, if it shall be adopted by the House, by proposing similar substitutes in the case of all those provisions which in my judgment affect injuriously the staff corps of the Army. The substitute which I offer does not disturb the present organization of the Army. It leaves it, as regards this staff corps, untouched. As it is now it does no injustice; it deprives no officer of his commission without a hearing; it turns out no faithful officer from the service; it violates no principle, and is no injurious innovation. It is simply the preservation of what already exists, and what, in my judgment, is infinitely better than the experiment which is proposed.

Mr. BLAINE. I desire to say a single word in regard to the pending section. The chairman of the committee is very well aware--and it is not improper for me to say it-that as a member of the committee I have differed from him in regard to this bill as regards the staff corps. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. THAYER,] I think, would not have shown so much indignation against the committee if he had understood the origin of this nomenclature, as applied to the staff corps. I will state how this change of nomenclature origi

nated.

I thought, sir, when the gentleman from Illi-
nois [Mr. HARDING] a few moments ago,
ing of this bill, said that the idea was to make
a brilliant army, he was indulging in a display
of that parliamentary irony which the gentle-
man from Ohio condemned yesterday in the
gentleman from New York, [Mr. CHANLER.]
Sir, it may be a brilliant army after you have per-
petrated this great injustice and swept out all the
officers on the various staffs who have been doing
service there, some of them during the greater
part of their lives, and faithful and eminent ser-
vice, too, without so much as a trial or accusa-
tion. It may be a brilliant army, in your esti-
mation, after you have incorporated into your
law the twenty-ninth section, which gives the
President of the United States power to trans-
fer an officer at his volition from the staff to
the line, from one staff corps to another staff
corps, from one arm of the regular service to
another arm of the service, to swap them about
as politicians may request for the benefit of
their favorites and followers. It may be a
brilliant army, in your estimation, if you adopt
the twenty-eighth section and destroy the great
and just principle of promotion by seniority in
service (a principle which I maintain to be the
only just and proper one regulating promo-
tions under our system of government) and
substitute for it a political scramble for pro-
motion. I say, when you do all this injustice
and make all these disorganizing changes you
may have perhaps what may be ironically
termed a brilliant army, but it will not be an

The Quartermaster General of the Army, an officer for whom I have a most profound respect, was at my instance invited before the Military Committee to discuss the affairs relat ing to his department, and this is the department to which the gentleman has referred with

the most zeal.

Mr. THAYER. No, sir; my amendment does not relate to that department. You have made this change in the Adjutant General's department.

Mr. BLAINE. Do not interrupt me at this moment. The Quartermaster General himself suggested that the titles in the staff corps, particularly relating to his own, were unduly long and cumbersome, and he asked that they should be changed and made verbatim, literatim, et punctuatim as they are in this bill. And it was as a convenience to him that it was done. And now that the gentleman from Pennsyl vania should suppose that it was the design of the Military Committee to legislate a set of gentlemen out of office by a change of nomenspeak-clature, I can hardly think he is serious about it.

I agree with him that that change would have that effect. I am not in favor of the change; but I want to say that it was the furthest from the intention of the committee to do anything more than to accede to the wishes of the departments, as they thought were expressed through this chief.

Now, one word about the Adjutant General's department. If I cannot have a better amendment than the one the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. THAYER] has offered, I shall vote for that. I think the argument of the chairman of the committee in regard to curtailing the size of this staff corps is unsound. The section provides that after a certain time the assistant adjutants of the corps shall be reduced to ten.

Here let me state a fact. When the war broke out in 1861, with a little army of eleven thousand men, capable of being enlarged to nineteen thousand, there were fourteen offi. cers in the Adjutant General's department, and it was not considered too many. During the war it was increased by six. And now, with an army four or five times as great, there are only six added, making twenty. You have not increased them fifty per cent., while you increase the Army fourfold. I think, instead of decreasing the number, it ought to be increased.

When the generals in convention-Generals Grant, Meade, and Sherman-recommended that there should be seventeen of these officers the committee in the Senate agreed to it, but

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »