« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
which passed that body, the number is eighty, or seven officers less than the bill recommended by those generals.
Mr. SCHENCK. Will the gentleman. allow me to ask upon what authority he states that those generals recommended eighty-seven?
Mr. THAYER. I state it on the authority of a letter which I hold in my hand written by the chairman of the Military Committee of the Senate.
Mr. SCHENCK. I state on the authority of the bill which I hold in my hand that it is not so.
stead of ten lieutenant colonels, only eight lieutenant colonels; that it gives you instead of fifteen majors, sixteen majors-one more than is provided for in the House bill; and that it gives you forty-eight captains instead of forty-four captains.
Mr. THAYER. Then the issue is between the two chairmen, and I shall not undertake to settle the difference between them.
Mr. SCHENCK. No, sir, the issue is between the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs of the Senate, I insist, and his own bill which I hold in my hand.
Mr. THAYER. There is no issue between the Senate bill No. 67, and the statement which I have made. The statement in the letter accords with Senate bill No. 67, which was Mr. WILSON's bill, and the gentleman is incorrect in undertaking to deny that it is so. If there is an issue between the gentleman from Ohio and the chairman of the Military Committee of the Senate, I have nothing to do with that. I shall not undertake to settle the differences between the two committees of the respective Houses any more than I shall undertake to settle the differences which notoriously exist in the gentleman's own committee. That is a matter which I leave to him to adjust. I am now engaged in pointing out to the House the fact that in the Senate bill approved by the major generals who had these subjects under consideration, the number of officers proposed for the quartermaster's staff was eighty-seven, that in the bill now before the House the number is seventy-six, and that in the substitute for the section which I offered it is seventy-seven. So that the House will perceive that the number of officers embraced in the Quartermaster General's staff by the bill which passed the Senate, No. 138, and which is the same as my substitute, excepting that in the latter the three chief assistant quartermasters are omitted is seven fewer than was contained in the Senate bill 67, which was approved by the generals who had this matter under advisement.
Now, sir, from the remarks that were made by the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs when this bill was last under consideration, one might be led to suppose that the substitute which I have offered for this section, which is the Senate section with the alterations that I have adverted to, provides for a larger and more expensive staff than that which is recommended by the Military Committee of this House. I wish, by a very few figures, to point out the total incorrectness of any such representation.
Now, it will be perceived by any gentleman who will take the trouble to analyze these two bills-I mean Senate bill No. 138, which passed that body, and the bill now before the Housethat although by the Senate bill, with the three chief assistant quartermasters left out, as in my substitute, there is one more quartermaster in the department than is provided for in the House bill, yet the expense of the number provided for is actually less, and I can demonstrate it to the satisfaction of the House in a very few moments.
The gentleman's bill provides a staff for this department of six colonels, each of whom receive $211 a month; ten lieutenant colonels who receive $187 apiece per month; fifteen majors who receive $163 per month apiece; and forty-four captains who are paid $129 50 apiece per month. The aggregate monthly expenditure, therefore, of the gentleman's bill for quartermasters (I leave out, of course, the Quartermaster General in these calculations, because he is in both bills,) will be $11,279
Now, if you take the substitute, you will find that, instead of providing for six colonels, it gives only four colonels; that it gives, in
The pay of the four colonels provided for by the Senate bill at $211 per month amounts to $844; the pay of eight lieutenant colonels at $187 a month to $1,496; the pay of sixteen majors at $163 a month to $2,608; and pay of forty-eight captains at $129 50 per month to $6,216. The aggregate monthly expense, therefore, of the officers called for by the substitute I have offered amounts to $11,164, being exactly $115 less per month than the expense under the House bill, although the substitute provides for one officer more. The annual difference between the two propositions is, therefore, $1,380 in favor of the substitute which has in it one more quartermaster than is provided for in the House bill.
Now, if there is any mistake about this, I invite the attention of the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs to this calculation, and ask him to point out, if it is possible for him to do so, wherein this calculation is erroneous. I state without any apprehension of denial that the result is as I state it.
The gentleman made a great display on Friday last in a comparison which he instituted between my proposition and his own bill, and he gave the impression to this House that the former created a more numerous and expensive organization than his own bill; instead of which, in point of fact, it now appears by figures that the former, although it provides for one more quartermaster than the gentleman's bill, is cheaper than his bill by $1,380 per annum. So much for that. I think I have disposed of the argument which rests upon the assertion that the substitute proposes any expense on the part of the Government exceeding that contemplated by the bill of the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. PAINE. Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania allow me to inquire whether in his estimate of the comparative cost of the quartermaster's department, as provided in the Senate bill and in the bill now reported by the committee, he has allowed for the three brigadier generals in that department?
Mr. THAYER. No, sir.
Mr. PAINE. Well, he has spoken of the bill which he has been comparing with the House bill as the Senate bill. I ask him if that bill does not provide for three brigadier generals.
Mr. THAYER. I will answer the gentleman. The bill as it passed the Senate did so provide, as I have repeatedly said, but I hope the gentleman will now understand that in the substitute which I have offered, I struck out the three chief assistant quartermasters, who are brigadiers.
Mr. PAINE. Will the gentleman permit me to ask whether he is not comparing the section of the bill now before the House with his own section rather than with the section of the bill which passed the Senate?
Mr. THAYER. When I speak of the Senate provision upon this subject, I speak of the substitute which I offered, and which is the precise language of the Senate bill, with the provision relating to the three chief assistant quartermasters stricken out.
Mr. SCHENCK. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. THAYER] is giving us his calculations, will he tell us at what he puts the pay of a colonel?
in kind, which is $417. Taking that out, and it will leave him $4,213 81. And I say every portion of the pay furnished to the gentleman, and upon which he has based his calculations, is utterly wrong.
Mr. THAYER. At $211 a month. Mr. SCHENCK. What yearly pay and compensation?
Mr. THAYER. The gentleman will observe that I have made my comparison by the monthly pay.
Mr. SCHENCK. I undertake to say that somebody has very greatly imposed upon the gentleman. I say that every colonel on duty here in the quartermaster's department receives $4,680 81 a year, including his forage
Does the gentleman mean to deny that $211 per month is the pay allowed by law to a colonel?
Mr. SCHENCK. What is called " pay proper" is one thing; the actual pay and allowances is another and quite a different thing.
Mr. THAYER. The "pay proper" is what I mean.
Mr. SCHENCK. That is a small matter. And a colonel on service in the quartermaster's department gets more than a colonel of infantry on duty elsewhere, for he draws pay as a colonel of cavalry. He is allowed commutation for two servants at thirty-two dollars a month or $384 a year; clothing for two servants, thirteen dollars a month or $156 a year; subsistence for three hundred and sixty-five days at six rations a day for himself, and two rations a day for servants, two thousand nine hundred and twenty rations, or $876 a year. He is also allowed forage in kind for two horses, which, at the present estimate at the quartermaster's department, will amount to $417 a year. And then he is allowed as commutation for fuel $397 81 a year. And he is also allowed for quarters, which in Washington is at the rate of eighteen dollars a room per month, while elsewhere it is nine dollars a room, except in New York where it is twelve dollars, the sum of $1,080 a year, making in all $4,450 81 a year. Then there is the difference between a colonel of infantry and a colonel of cavalry, $180; making the whole pay and allowances of a colonel of cavalry in the quartermaster's department $4,630 81. From this may be deducted forage, which is in kind, while all the rest is in money, $417. And to be very exact about it, that will give the amount of money paid to a colonel in the quartermaster's department as $4,213 81 a year. Now, I am stating some things here which have not been furnished to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. THAYER] upon which to base his calculations.
Mr. THAYER. If the gentleman's furniture is as good as mine he will have no reason to complain of its quality.
Mr. SCHENCK. Mine is from the pay department.
Mr. THAYER. I am much obliged to the gentleman for the statement he has made, for he has furnished me with an additional argument against his bill. He says that I have not included in my calculations the allowances to these officers; and he speaks of the large allowances made to these colonels and lieutenant colonels. Have I not told the House, and does not the House perceive, that the gentleman's bill provides for six colonels, while my substitute proposes only four colonels? The gentleman's bill provides for ten lieutenant colonels, while my substitute proposes only eight lieutenant colonels.
Mr. SCHENCK. The gentleman will not be so much obliged for the argument he says I have furnished him if he will look at the lower grades of majors and captains. The allowances made to the lower grades are greater in proportion to the pay proper than those made to the upper grades.
As, for instance, a major of infantry gets $864 for quarters, and $359 31 for fuel; being thirty-eight dollars less than the allowance to a colonel for fuel, and a little more than one hundred dollars less for quarters. The same thing is found to be true all the way down. The lower you get as to grade the larger in proportion to pay are the allowances. I am speaking of that for which I have the figures. A second lieutenent stationed at Washington gets $2,088 41, some five or six hundred dollars more than the amount received by a second lieutenant in the field.
Mr. THAYER. If the gentleman shall succeed in convincing this House that a captain gets more in the way of commutation and allow
Mr. CHANLER. I feel much gratified, Mr. Speaker, in being able to unite with the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs in his laudable efforts to reduce the organization of the Army. I understand the gentleman's motive, as he has asserted, to be one based upon the peace establishment. I have no doubt that this section is fair. It stipulates the manner in which the reduction is to take place. The reduction, however, seems to be not so mach of a consolidation as promotion of officers from the rank they now hold in the Army Register of 1865, promotion from the rank of major to colonel and lieutenant colonel.
Mr. SCHENCK. What I said was that the lower the grade the greater are the allowances in proportion to the pay.
Mr. THAYER. Now, sir, I have pointed out to the House the fact that the amendment Now, the point of issue between the gentlewhich I have offered as a substitute proposes man from Pennsylvania [Mr. THAYER] and the but one more officer than the gentleman's bill. gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SCHENCK] seems The gentleman's bill provides for seventy-six to be "whittled down" to the question of two quartermasters; the substitute provides for sev captains of cavalry. The reduction of the enty-seven. And I aflirm, with entire confi- armies of the United States is to take this dence in the accuracy of my calculation, that form, with an expenditure of $38,000,000 per the seventy-seven quartermasters, with the ranks annum to support an organization of seventywhich are assigned them in the substitute now two regiments. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. before the House, will be less expensive to the SCHENCK] proposes to change the present orGovernment than the seventy-six quartermas-ganization of the Army by simply promoting ters provided for in the gentleman's bill. He in the different bureaus different officers from may figure all day and he cannot make the the rank of captain. It seems to me to be recontrary appear. The reason is that his bill duced to a point of but little difference to the increases the number of the higher grades of tax-payers, except as to the increase of officers officers on the staff. who are promoted.
ances than a colonel or a lieutenant colonel, then there will be some force in the remarks which he has made. But I apprehend that he will run against very hard facts and figures in attempting to sustain any such position. Everybody knows that the contrary is true, and that the higher officers get more by way of allowances than the subalterns. The gentleman is, in my judgment, very bold in undertaking a denial of this.
Now, sir, a few words more and I have done. The gentleman has proposed this morning an amendment looking to a reduction of the staff. For one I am opposed to that reduction. I am opposed to it because I do not believe that the present force is too large for an army upon the present scale. If you desire to organize an army of smaller dimensions than that proposed in this bill, if you will cut down your Army from fifty thousand to thirty thousand men, or if you will to any extent materially reduce its numbers you may diminish the staff. But what I say is, that these distinguished generals, with all their vast experience and personal knowledge, recommended for an army of forty-five thousand men, contemplated by bill No. 67 of the Senate, eighty-seven quartermasters for the staff. The number proposed in my substitute is seventy-seven, being, as I have already several times remarked, the same number proposed in Senate bill No. 138, with the three chief assistants stricken out.
Now, sir, I am willing to stand upon the opinions of those distinguished military officers. I say that if in their judgment a staff of eighty-seven officers in the Quartermaster General's department was a sufficiently small staff for such an army as was contemplated by Senate bill No. 67, then it is impossible for me to conclude that seventy-seven, exactly ten officers less, is an immoderate number for a bill which contemplates the organization of an army with, I believe, five thousand more men as a minimum, but which, you will bear in mind, it is possible to expand, under the provisions of the gentleman's bill to, I believe, eighty thousand men.
Now, sir, why legislate upon a contingency which may not exist? If you contemplate a general reduction of the Army, you cannot properly reduce it piecemeal in this way. This is not the way, in my judgment, to begin to reduce an army. You must make the reduction consistent in its details. You must first ascertain the size of your Army; and then when you have concluded upon the extent of the reduction you may set yourself to work to reduce all the several staff corps proportionally. I do not find that the gentleman proposes a general reduction of the other staffs or a reduction of his proposed force. On the contrary, the gentleman's bill proposes an army ⚫ for a peace establishment. If the Army should be reduced at any time in the future, it will be perfectly competent for Congress to proceed to rearrange the several staff corps, and to adapt them in numbers and details to any reduction which may be made in the force; but why provide for a reduction of the staff corps when you do not provide for a reduction of the Army? [Here the hammer fell.]
We are entitled, the people of the country are entitled, to more consideration after their losses, and with the heavy burdens of taxation imposed upon them.
The number of officers employed in the quartermaster's department, as recorded in the Army Register for 1865, is seventy-eight. The number as suggested by the substitute of the gentleman from Pennsylvania is seventy-seven, and the number suggested by the gentleman from Ohio is seventy-six, a mere reduction of two in the Army of the United States, in face of all the eloquence of the gentleman from Ohio. We have spent two whole days in regard to the propriety of a reduction in the quartermaster's department of two officers holding the rank of captain, while the gentleman proposes an increase in that bureau of the rank of two officers, so that there shall be two colonels. In the section now before the House we have six quartermasters, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of a colonel, while in the present organization we have only three. That is a reduction ad absurdum. There are also ten quartermasters with the rank, pay, and emoluments of a lieutenant colonel of cavalry. That is in the pending section of the bill offered by the gentleman from Ohio. The lieutenant colonels in the present organization are four. There happens to be eleven majors in the present organization and fifteen in this bill, while the number of captains is diminishd.
Again, sir, by this bill we have a reëstablishment of this bureau whereby all the precedents on record in the War Office are changed, whereby all the routine of that Department is threatened with discord and confusion, while the whole question of retrenchment is forgotten in the question of promotion.
Who are to be benefited by this system? Is
Sir, a standing army may be a necessity; I
The period has never existed when a standing army, so far as fitness of the people to protect themselves is concerned, was less needed than at present. The people of the country, on both sides of the Potomac, are an armed militia, ready at the first sound of the bugle or of the drum to fall in line, as they have been in face of each other, against the common
For the suppression of insurrection there is now, happily, no need. For protection on our borders the force we now have is amply sufficient. And the gentleman on the other side who spoke so eloquently the other day [Mr. HARDING, of Illinois, ] and took the lead on this question on the Administration side against a large standing army, said he would undertake with a division of cavalry and of infantry to hold this country in perfect security for all time to come. I understood the gentleman to say that, and I believe he is right. And I hope he will have an opportunity of testing the fact by a proper reduction of the standing Army. Then we will see whether the people of this country are not capable of self-government without the aid of a military organization of such gigantic proportions-gigantic, not in the case of the late struggle, not in consideration of the armies which we have lately had in the field, but gigantic as compared with what has been required in the past history or by the present condition of this country. In view of the fact that peace lies at the bottom of our institutions and that the people are willing at all times to hold themselves in readiness for the defense of the country, standing as the people do to-day, educated to govern themselves, educated in military matters by the militia law in every State, ready to go to the front at their country's call, we need, in my humble opinion, no such gigantic military organization as is proposed by this bill.
Sir, the defense of this country at this time does not depend upon your Army. Admit that the threatened invasion of the northeastern border may be well founded, that cannot be used as a pretext for a large standing army. There is not force enough in the British Prov inces to call for such an army as this. A war with Great Britain, if it should ever come, would have to be waged mainly at sea.
And I maintain that this system of retrenchment of the Army is in direct contradiction of the system adopted in regard to the Navy. This is a retrenchment whereby officers are promoted, whereby gentlemen are charged with advancing the interests of their special favorites. But there is a great favorite of this country which won for us much honor, and which has placed our flag as high as it ever floated even in the late civil war, and which has never been treated by this body or by this Administration with due respect. The knife has been applied there without scruple and without consideration. I refer, sir, to the Navy.
I do not know why the gentlemen on the Military Committee should be called upon to state that in the organization of the bureaus of the Army such an immense force is necessary to carry it on, while the Navy requires but a minimum of the same number. That may be the secret. Patronage may underlie it all. It may be that the Army organization is a better machine for political purposes than the Navy can be. If so, so much the greater necessity for retrenchment. I will admit that the necessity of promotions arises in an inverse proportion, but it cannot be that political patronage is the secret of this promotion. It cannot be that, using the position of the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.SCHENCK] has been misled from any personal feelings in this question.
[Here the hammer fell.]
Mr. PAINE.. As I understand the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. THAYER,] whose amendment we are now considering, and as I
the proposition of the House committee. But, leaving out of view the mere question of nomenclature, it appears to me to be very plain that the House committee has approximated vastly nearer to the recommendations of those distinguished generals, in the bill which they have introduced, and which is now before the House, than the distinguished Representative from Pennsylvania has done in the amendment which he offered.
believe the House understood him, he bases his proposition upon the supposed approval of the generals whose advice has been brought before both Houses. I may have misunderstood him in this, but I certainly understood him to ask the House to adopt his amendment because it was in substantial conformity with the advice of those generals. I desire now to ask him whether his amendment comes nearer to the form of the recommendation of those generals to whom he alludes.
Mr. THAYER. I think the substitute is much nearer; and if the gentleman will allow me I will correct him a little. What I stated was simply this: that the distinguished generals to whom I referred had recommended Senate bill No. 67, and that that provided for staff in the quartermaster's department of eighty-seven officers, whereas the substitute does not call for as many by ten; and I used that as an argument with which to rebuke the argument brought forward by the chairman of the committee, [Mr. SCHENCK,] that the number called for in my substitute was an unnecessary number. I did not say nor intimate that || the generals had had under consideration my substitute. The gentleman was mistaken if he understood anything of that kind. Nor did I say that they had considered the Senate bill No. 138. If the House wilklook at Senate bill No. 67, and then look at the gentleman's bill, they will find the greatest discrepancies. The generals did not recommend the abolition of the office of assistant quartermaster general, as the gentleman's bill does, or of the office of deputy quartermaster general. And as to the number of officers, I wish to say to the gentleman from Wisconsin, that they recommend, upon the quartermaster's staff, eighty-seven officers, instead of the much smaller number provided for in the substitute. Mr. PAINE resumed the floor.
Mr. CONKLING. I want, at some time or other, a little information, and I do not know any gentleman who would be better able to give it to me than the gentleman from Wisconsin. I ask him, therefore, to indicate some point in his remarks when it will be not inconvenient to him that I ask him a question or two. Mr. PAINE. I will do so with pleasure. Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand the bill now before the House reported by the Committee on Military Affairs. I also hold in my hand Senate bill No. 67, which, as I now understand, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.THAYER] embodies substantially the recommendations of the generals.
I find that in the bill now before us there are provided for six quartermasters, with the rank of colonel; in the Senate bill, recommended by the generals, there are also six quartermasters, of the rank of colonel. I find that in the bill before us there are ten quartermasters provided for with the rank of lieutenant colonel; but I find in the Senate bill, No. 67 there are twelve officers of that rank provided for. I find that the bill now before the House provides for fifteen majors, while the Senate bill, to which the gentleman refers, makes provision for twenty officers of that grade. I find that of captains in this service the bill before the House provides for forty-four, while in this Senate bill, which the gentleman says embodies the recommendations of the generals, there are forty-eight officers of that grade provided for. Now, it seems to me that if the gentleman has presented an amendment here which reduces the number of officers of these several grades below the number provided for in the bill reported by the committee, he is still further from following the recommendations of the generals than the committee itself.
It may be true, as the gentleman has said, that the generals have recommended different titles for these several grades of officers to those the committee of this House have recommended, and in that respect, so far as the mere nomenclature goes, it may be truo that the amendment offered by the gentleman, or rather the Senate bill No. 67, is nearer the recommendation of these general officers than
Mr. PAINE. In reply to the interrogatory of the gentleman from New York, I have to say this: that I believe it to be pretty nearly the unanimous opinion of those members of this House who have given the question their attention that the change in the title of one of these officers would, without some opinion of law to meet the case, or save the officer, abolish that office. But, if I understand correctly the posture of this question, as it is now before the House, there was a proposition introduced by the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs which prevents such an effect.
Mr. SCHENCK. Such a proposition was offered, and was adopted by the House, and it is a part of the section as it now stands.
Mr. CONKLING. Shall we understand, then, that as the section now stands, it does not legislate out anybody?
Mr. SCHENCK. With the permission of the House, I will ask for the reading of the section as it was amended this morning. It legislates nobody out; it is particularly provided that it shall not affect the title to their offices of all of these men.
Mr. CONKLING. Is that true of all of them? Mr. SCHENCK. It is true of all of them. Mr. FARQUHAR. I rise to advocate the section proposed by the Military Committee in preference to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. THAYER.] I concede that the figures presented by that gentleman give the advantage to the section as proposed in the bill from the Senate. That, however, I do not understand to be the important question involved as between the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the section in the bill reported from the Committee on Military Affairs of this House. The main point involved is the matter of economy. The gentleman claims that by his amendment the saving on the pay proper of colonels is $115 per month. Now, the matter of true economy is presented to us by the section reported by the committee of the House, and it consists in the fact that there is to be an actual reduction in the officers of this staff department, to be accomplished by refraining from filling vacancies as they occur until the number of majors has been reduced to three, and the number of captains fourteen; or a reduction of seventeen officers in all.
Mr. THAYER. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. FARQUHAR. Certainly. Mr. THAYER. If it is important that the number of officers in this department should be reduced, then why not favor the reduction at once? Or if this number be necessary now for an army of this size, how can a less number discharge the duties for an army of the same size when vacancies shall have occurred? Mr. FARQUHAR. I would not decrease the number now for the very reasons suggested a few moments ago by the interrogatory of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CONKLING.] There is no disposition on the part of this House, I think, to reduce the number of these
officers at this time and turn them adrift. the proposition of the committee is, that as vacancies occur by death, resignation, or otherwise, those vacancies shall not be filled until there has been a reduction of three majors and fourteen captains.
Mr. PAINE. I would ask the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. FARQUHAR] if he does not find in the present business of this department, resulting from the war, a necessity for the temporary continuance of the present number of officers in the department.
Mr. FARQUHAR. I am obliged to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. PAINE] for his suggestion; that is true. There is an immediate and present necessity for retaining the officers now on duty, and it is only proposed that in the case of vacancies by death, resignation, or otherwise, no appointments to fill such vacancies shall be made until the number of majors is reduced from fifteen to twelve, and the number of captains from forty-four to thirty.
And there is another reason why I favor the proposition as presented by the committee of the House, in this section. It provides that of the original appointments to be made under this bill, two thirds of the lieutenant colonels and majors and all of the captains shall be from volunteer officers who have performed meritorious services during the late war; that is, that two thirds of the ten colonels, two thirds of the fifteen majors, and all of the forty-four captains shall be appointed from officers of the volunteers.
Mr. THAYER. Will the gentleman allow me to call his attention to the fact that the substitute does the same?
Mr. FARQUHAR. I have not been able to see it. All I find in the substitute, which is section thirteen of the Senate bill, is that all vacancies thereby created in the grades of assistant quartermasters shall be filled by selection from among the persons who have rendered efficient and meritorious services as assistant quartermasters of volunteers during the war. I see no more than that.
Mr. THAYER. There can be no other vacancies.
Mr. FARQUHAR. I have been informed that there are other vacancies to arise besides the three assistant quartermasters general there referred to. If there are not, then in that respect the section of the committee's bill might have no advantage over the substitute. Still I prefer the section as reported by the committee.
Mr. SCHENCK. The Senate bill everywhere provides that these appointments shall be made from quartermasters and others who have served during the late war. But the House committee has preferred to take them all from our side, and to say that the appointments shall be made from among volunteer officers who have served in the Army of the United States during the late war.
Mr. THAYER. Will the gentleman allow me, for the sake of accuracy, to call his attention to the concluding language of the substitute, which provides that these positions shall be filled by selection from among persons who have rendered meritorious service as assistant quartermasters of volunteers during two years of the war?
Mr. SCHENCK. Exactly.
Mr. THAYER. Now, I would like to know where there is any discrimination in favor of the regular Army.
Mr. SCHENCK. I am not speaking about the regular Army. I am speaking about the rebel volunteers and the Union volunteers. We have preferred to require that these officers should have served on our side in the war. That is one difference between the two bills.
Mr. THAYER. That is a very nice criticism.
Mr. SCHENCK. It is a somewhat material point, it seems to me.
I wish now to call the attention of the House to the fact that the question now before us is the amendment to the amendment, proposing to attach to the substitute of the gentleman
a good deal of creeping up as to numbers and rank; that when the board of officers met here they took this bill No. 67, went over it mainly with reference to the general size of the Army and some special provisions and other amendments and suggestions, as, for instance, fifteen new brigadier generals not agreed to by the House or Senate committee. As to the organization including the quartermaster's department, I mean these general sections, they simply pass them by, making no recommendations in regard to them.
from Pennsylvania the retrenchment in number proposed in the House bill. That is precisely the retrenchment to which the attention of the House has been called by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. FARQUHAR,] reducing the number of captains and the number of majors, so as to make an aggregate deduction of seventeen from the whole number. And the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. PAINE] rightly apprehended the motive of the committee in not making that reduction immediate. They provide that now, while we are winding up the vast business of the late war, this reduction shall not take place; but that hereafter, as vacancies occur in these lower grades, the reduction shall take place. The House is now called upon to say whether it will or will not sustain the committee in the proposed reduction.
As to the substitute of the gentleman, I desire to make but one or two remarks; for probably the discussion on this subject has already been protracted-to a greater extent than is profitable. First, one word upon the general proposition which the gentleman makesand which I think he cannot well have considered, or he would not have made it—that just in proportion as you increase the Army, you must increase its staff corps. I deny it. I say that in proportion as you increase an army, you may increase and ought to increase somewhat your staff corps, but not in equal ratio. You must increase your line officers in equal ratio. Every gentleman who knows anything about a turnpike company or a railroad company or a banking association will understand the principle involved here. A railroad company, with a road one hundred miles long, has its president, its vice president, its board of directors, its treasurer, its secretary. If that road be extended to the length of two hundred miles, no increase in the number of managing officers of the company is necessarily required, although a larger force is necessary to do the work along the line. So, if you increase the capital of a banking association from $500,000 to $1,000,000, you do not need to increase in the same proportion the number of the general supervisory officers-the staff, as it may be called. You may need to increase somewhat your agencies in that direction, but by no means in proportion to the increase of capital. The case is precisely the same with an army. The staff is the general supervisory powerthe board of directors as it were, in a certain sense, of the Army; and you do not need to increase the staff just in proportion as you increase the rank and file, just as you increase the number of regiments, brigades, and divisions. You must increase your line officers, your field and company officers, in the same proportion in which you increase the rank and file; but the staff does not need to be increased except in a comparatively small degree. Hence the remarks of the gentleman imply a very grave mistake in reference to this
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say in reference to this discrepancy, that within my experience we have never legislated under such peculiar circumstances. Instead of being met here with argument, instead of being met with facts, we are met with some shadowy reference to something that has been done by some general officers, or by the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs of the Senate, who has written a letter, if I understand the gentleman from Pennsylvania correctly, to explain to him what this House ought to do.
Mr. THAYER. The gentleman will permit me to say that I said nothing about that letter until I was asked upon what authority I made the statement that the general officers to whom I referred had approved a similar proposition to that embodied in my amendment.
Mr. SCHENCK. Very well; I should like to see that report of the general officers produced here, instead of being talked about in this way. I undertake to say this: that in the Senate the bill No. 67 was first introduced, and afterward another Senate bill No. 67, with
That is what I undertake to say. I say further, when the Senate came to bill No. 138 they changed to a considerable extent, even that section relating to quartermasters, as it was before that council of military men. When the gentleman from Pennsylvania here undertakes to introduce his substitute he departs still further from it. Take his own statement. He says this House must not make any reduction, that it must not follow its own committee because that committee has departed from what was recommended by a board of officers, and in the same breath tells the House this same council recommended eighty-seven, and he recommends seventy-six, that is that he may depart from the recommendation of these officers, that he may come down from eightyseven to seventy-six, but it will not do for the Committee on Military Affairs of the House, looking over the same matter, to come to the same conclusion.
Again, in regard to what the Senate has done. The Senate adopts the important feature of three brigadier generals. He abandons that, and yet he quotes the chairman of the Military Committee of the Senate.
I trust this House, whether it has or has not faith in its own committee, which has bestowed not a little time and attention on this matter, not only to see how far we can bring down the number of these officers now, but in regard to a future reduction of them to the needs of the country-I hope, whether they place confidence in the committee or not, they will look at these things themselves, and not let gentlemen lead them away by what some board of officers has done or what some chairman of committee in another body has thought may be done, gentletlemen who quote persons outside and in the same breath refuse to consider them as any authority.
I believe this matter has been sufficiently discussed, and I therefore demand the previous question upon the section and pending amend
The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered.
The question recurred on Mr. SCHENCK'S amendment.
The House divided; and there were-ayes 50, noes 12; no quorum voting.
The SPEAKER ordered tellers; and appointed Messrs. GARFIELD and THAYER.
The House again divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 58, noes 35.
So the amendment was adopted.
The question then recurred on the substitute of Mr. THAYER, as amended.
Mr. SCHENCK. If the substitute be voted down the section will be left as reported from the committee?
The SPEAKER. It will.
The House divided; and there were-ayes 33, noes 38; no quorum voting.
Mr. RANDALL, of Pennsylvania, demanded the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 44, nays 70, not voting 69; as follows:
YEAS-Messrs. Anderson, Bidwell, Boyer, Chanler, Sidney Clarke, Conkling, Defrees, Dixon, Dodge, Eldridge, Finck, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Grider, Griswold, Aaron Harding, James M. Humphrey, Jenckes, Kelley, Latham, George V. Lawrence, Loan, Marshall, Marvin, Myers, Niblack, Nicholson, Samnel J. Randall, John H. Rice, Ritter, Rogers, Ross,
Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Spalding, Taber, Taylor,
Thayer, Thornton, Robert T. Van Horn, Elihu B. Washburne, James F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge-44.
NAYS-Messrs. Allison, Ames, Ancona, Baker, Banks, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Bingham, Blow, Reader W. Clarke, Cobb, Deming, Donnelly, Eliot, Boutwell, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Farquhar, Ferry, Garfield, Grinnell, Hale, Abner C. Harding, Hayes, Henderson, Higby, Holmes, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd, Ketcham, Kuykendall, Laflin, William Lawrence, Longyear, Marston, McClurg, MeKee, McRuer. Mercur, Miller, Morrill, Morris, Moulton, Newell, Orth, Paine, Patterson, Perham, Plants, Price, William H. Randall, Rollins, Rousseau, Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger, Smith, Stevens, Trowbridge, Upson, Ward, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, and Williams-70.
NOT VOTING-Messrs. Alley, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baldwin, Barker, Bergen, Blaine, Brandegee, Cofroth, Cook, Cullom, Culver, Darling, Davis, Dawes, Dawson, Delano, Denison, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eggleston, Farnsworth, Harris, Hart, Hill, Hogan, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, Edwin N. Hubbell, James Humphrey, Ingersoll, Johnson, Jones, Julian, Kasson, Kelso, Kerr, Le Blond, Lynch, McCullough, MeIndoe, Moorhead, Noell, O'Neill, Phelps, Pike, Pomeroy, Radford, Raymond, Alexander H. Rice, Sawyer, Sloan, Starr, Stilwell, Strouse, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas, Trimble, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Warner, Wentworth, Whaley, Stephen F. Wilson, Winfield, and Wright-70.
So the substitute was rejected.
The Clerk read the following sections:
SEC. 17. And be it further enacted, That the number of military storekeepers shall hereafter be as many as shall be required, not exceeding sixteen, who shall have the rank, pay, and emoluments of captains of infantry.
SEC. 18. And be it further enacted, That the provisions of the act for the better organization of the quartermaster's department, approved July 4, 1864, shall continue in force so far as they do not become obsolete and unnecessary upon the disbandment of the volunteer forces.
SEC. 19. And be it further enacted, That the subsistence department shall hereafter consist of the number of officers now authorized by law, namely, one commissary general, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of a brigadier general; two assistant commissary generals, with the rank. pay, and emoluments of colonels of cavalry; two commissaries, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of lieutenant colonels of cavalry; eight commissaries, with the rank, pay. and emoluments of majors of cavalry; and sixteen commissaries, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of captains of cavalry. But, after the first appointments made under the provisions of this section, as vacancies may occur, reducing the number of officers in the several grades below that of brigadier general of this department, no appointments to fill the same shall be made until the number of colonels shall be reduced to one, the number of majors to five, and the number of captains to ten. And thereafter the number of officers in each of said several grades shall continue to conform to such reduced numbers. And hereafter no graduate of the United States Military Academy, being at the time in the Army of the United States. or having been therein at any time for three years next preceding, shall be eligible to appointment as an officer in the subsistence department.
Mr. WOODBRIDGE. I move to amend section nineteen by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
That the subsistence department of the Army shall hereafter consist of the officers now authorized by law, namely, one commissary general of subsistence, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of a brigadier general; two assistant commissary generals, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of colonel of cavalry; two assistant commissary generals, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of lieutenant colonel of cavalry; eight commissaries, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of majors of cavalry; and sixteen commissaries, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of captains of cavalry.
The amendment proposed as a substitute, is a section taken from the Senate bill, and in my judgment is preferable to the one introduced by the Committee on Military Affairs. In regard to the titles it follows what the committee of the House adopted respecting the Adjutant General's department, and leaves the offices, titles, and rank the same as at present.
I would like to know from the chairman of the committee if he proposes to introduce an amendment to this section similar to that which was made to the thirteenth section, relating to the Adjutant General's department.
Mr. SCHENCK. Yes, sir.
Mr. WOODBRIDGE. Then the argument that this bill would legislate out certain gentlemen now holding rank in the department is not necessary; so that the only differences between this amendment and the original section are, first, that hereafter, if my amendment is adopted, as vacancies occur they will be filled and the force in the department will not be diminished; and second, that when vacancies.
I desire to have read a communication from
do occur they may be filled by graduates of the country. I know of one lieutenant colonel
Why, sir, there is another lieutenant colonel
mencement of the rebellion he desired to take
OFFICE COMMISSARY GENERAL OF SUBSISTENCE,
SIR: In reply to your note of this date calling my attention to the provision of H. R. bill 361, section nineteen, reducing the number of officers of the subsistence department, after being first filled to its present strength, and asking my views thereon, I have the honor to state that the number of officers of the subsistence department now authorized is twenty-nine, which number it is proposed by this bill to continue until reduced by the occurrence of vacancies to nineteen.
In my judgment, the subsistence department should
not be reduced below its present number of officers, nor their grade or designation changed.
All of the twenty-nine officers (except Captain
Turner, brevet major general of volunteers, who is in command of the dist.ict of Henrico, Virginia,) now composing the department, are at present on duty at points where their services cannot be dispensed with without detriment to the service, which the accompanying list will in a measure explain, As soon as officers can be spared from their present positions, the service of one will be required in Arizona, another in Utah. One is (brevet Major Cushing) now on his way to the department of the Platte.
The Army is necessarily so widely scattered over the whole country of the United States that twentynine officers are not too many to give one officer to cach important purchasing point and point of general supervision.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant. A. B. EATON, Commissary General of Subsistence. Hon. ROBERT S. HALE, House of Representatives. Mr. WOODBRIDGE. Here we have a statement from General Eaton, who, during the last war, has won laurels for himself and his department by the readiness and facility with which he furnished supplies, giving his reasons why there should be no diminution of the force in his bureau, and his reasons are good. He is supposed to know what the wants of his department are, and he says that owing to the great extent of our country, requiring so many military divisions, even now, with the present force, there are two highly important stations not occupied.
Now, I understand from the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs that this department does not need many men, and that clerks can perform a large proportion of the duties required. Why, sir, what is the history of the commissary department? It was formerly on the civil list of the United States, and in the war of 1812, when those holding civil offices were invested with the duty of supplying the Army, it was found that it was impossible to secure that order and regularity of supply which necessary to keep an army successfully in the field. Accordingly.in 1818, the department was made a portion of the military arm of the Government, and from that time to the present it has always been so considered. Throughout the Mexican war, and the various Indian wars, its organization and efficiency have been ad mirable, and certainly during the rebellion it has been a matter of amazement to all European officers who have been here to see how the immense armies we have kept in the field have been supplied, having everything in the way of material that an army could need. We are told by my friend from Ohio [Mr. SCHENCK] that there are too many officers hanging about Washington in this department. If the gentleman had read the returns made by the department he would have seen that that is not so; because, of the twenty-nine officers connected with the department, there are only five to-day performing duty at Washington. The others are at Boston, Philadelphia, New York, New Orleans, San Francisco, and in various other portions of the country where purchases of supplies are absolutely demanded, so that we have not a bureau filled up with men who are seeking advancement and not performing duty. Of the twenty-nine men all but five are distributed in various sections of
Now, sir, if it is true, as I believe it is-for I am one of those who believe in the integrity of such men as General Eaton-that the force cannot be diminished, why does the gentleman from Ohio insist on reducing the number of officers from twenty-nine to nineteen? Before the war there were twelve or fourteen officers in this department, with an army of only seventeen thousand men. During the war, with an army proper of probably forty thousand, these twenty-nine officers have been required, and in addition to that some four or five hundred officers have been detailed from the volunteer service to fill various positions in the commissary department. With an army of fifty thousand at the minimum, with power of expanding it to eighty thousand, or thereabouts, and with all of these volunteer officers mustered out of the service, the whole duty will fall upon these twenty-nine men. And here is an attempt to reduce the number from twenty-nine to nineteen. It looks to me, sir, as penny wise and pound foolish.'
Again, sir, an objection is made to West Point graduates being permitted to have promotion in this department. That seems to me to be unjust toward West Point. We are told in this House that West Point has been a school where treason has been nurtured. Well, sir, if there have been men there who have been taught treason, it was because they were appointed by such men as until recently occupied the War Department, and who had early had instilled into them this pernicious doctrine of State rights. But take the record, and you will find that not one third of the graduates of West Point either resigned or joined the rebel army; while one half of the civil appointees in the regular Army deserted their flag and went over to the rebels.
Sir, it is not, and it has not been, a nursery of treason. It is, and it has been, a nursery of honorable, high-toned, high-minded, and educated gentlemen. And if there is a place under heaven where personal dignity and personal honor, under all circumstances, are inculcated, it is at West Point. Her course of education to-day is equal to that of any other institution in this country; and the courses of study in our colleges have been improved by borrowing from West Point.
[Here the hammer fell.]
Mr. SCHENCK. Certainly; I have no objection to that.
Mr. THAYER. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. WooD
BRIDGE] have his time extended until he shall
I was merely going on to say that this argument respecting West Point is one that is unjust toward that institution and toward the men who have been educated there.
Another feature of this bill, to which we shall come hereafter, divorces West Point from the Engineer corps, where it always has been, and where in my judgment it always should be, because the engineer officers are placed in that department by reason of their superior attainments in all the various branches of military knowledge.
Mr. SCHENCK. We are not considering the engineer department now.
Mr. WOODBRIDGE. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SCHENCK] objects to my remarking upon any other portion of the bill, and I will not pursue the argument further.
After the revolutionary war was over, Washington saw the importance of a military education, and West Point was established. Through the war of 1812 she carried us successfully; and in the war with Mexico, West Point obtained the most triumphant victories, and made the most triumphant marches that at that time were on the record of history.
And during this great rebellion, what has been the record of West Point? Look at her Grants, and Shermans, and Sheridans, and Meades, and her dozens and scores of others who covered themselves with glory during this last controversy. The heroes of the war that came from West Point challenge to-day the admiration of the world. They are the men whose names are written highest on the scroll of honor.
Sir, I would not depreciate the efforts of other officers, or detract from their merit. The volunteers of this country are entitled to the lasting gratitude of the country; they have made their record high and heroic. But, sir, war is a science, and the man who has been educated to the profession is the more likely to excel. And when in addition to that education, he is trained in those high notions of personal honor which West Pointers are trained in, you may put your Treasury in his hands and every dollar will be accounted for.
Mr. SCHENCK. The proposition of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Woodbridge] is to strike out the House section and to insert the Senate section as a substitute. He admits the differences to be three, the first of which is in the titles given to these officers. The House bill proposes to get rid of the titles of assistant commissary generals of subsistence and assistant commissaries of subsistence, and to provide for them by a couple of assistant commissary generals, and call all the rest commissaries. This is, as it was in regard to the quartermas ter's department, a matter of taste. The House has concurred with the committee, by adopting the section which they have reported in regard to the quartermaster's department, and I hope they will agree with the committee to apply the same rule to commissaries of subsistence.
The gentleman admits that there is no question between us as to the legal effect of that part of the bill, because I have ready an amendment precisely similar to that which was offered to the other two sections of the bill-an amendment of such a character as to avoid effectually any such legal consequence as to deprive these officers of their commissions. I leave, then, as a mere matter of taste or a mere matter of convenience for it is nothing more-the question whether these officers shall be called "assistant commissaries general" down the line till you come to the lowest, the captains, and then "commissaries of subsistence," or whether they shall all, except the two principal assistants, be called commissaries.
The next difference between the gentleman's