Massachusetts why it is he selects the heads of these bureaus and reduces them and yet leaves the subordinates in their present grade so we shall have in the quartermaster's department six colonels under his arrangement. He reduces the head of the department now a brigadier general, but he does not reduce those under him.

Then

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. My amendment indeed does, and I will answer the question. I have not yet got so far as the next in rank. I am dealing with the head now, and I propose to reduce the tail in the same ratio. I am coming to that as soon as I get the head right. I must deal with the thing I have before me. I want to drop the heads of these Depart ments down to the rank I have indicated. I propose the subordinates down to captains shall drop a peg lower to correspond. The committee will not muster out anybody. They will not take anybody's commission. This bill keeps all these useless officers. This bill, as reported, gives of staff officers one to every thirty-eight men. There are six hundred and fifty-one staff officers to deal with twenty-five thousand men. They will not let one of them

go.

There

There are more than twice as many as for the like number of men before the war. are seventeen general officers, twenty adjutant generals, nine inspector generals, seventy-six quartermasters, sixty four paymasters, one to five hundred men; twenty-nine subsistence men, one hundred and twenty-four medical officers-one medical officer to every two hundred men-sixty-four ordinance men, and one hundred and seven engineers, making a total of six hundred and fifty-one officers to twentyeight thousand men. That is what makes the expense of the Army. The committee have not proposed in their bill to drop one of these men until he dies. They hold on to him till that moment, and apparently would do so afterward if they could, but then he slips out of their hands. They take care of him as long as he lives, whether he is useful to the service or not. Now, my proposition is that these chiefs of bureaus shall come down to the pay of colonels, and their subordinates to the pay of lieutenant colonels, majors, and captains. [Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. GARFIELD. I propose to close debate on this section.

Mr. LOGAN. Allow me to be heard. Mr. GARFIELD. I will yield the gentleman five minutes.

Mr. LOGAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] withdraws his amendment, and I renew it. When I say I am in favor of reducing the Army I mean reducing the Army. The idea of presenting to this House and the country a mere pretense is not the way and manner in which we should deal with the people. Now, I mean no offense to the chairman of the committee when I say this, but I do say that this bill does not reduce the Army, though it pretends to do so.

I had a conversation with the Secretary of War this morning, in which this subject was incidentally referred to. Now, what is the proposition? It is to retire one seventh of the officers of the Army on half pay, and it is tuen proposed that they may be assigned to special duty. The Secretary of War would easily find special duty for them, and then you would have no actual reduction either in numbers of officers or in expense.

Now, sir, the way to reduce the Army is this: the people of the country do not understand that an officer of the Army has an inalienable right to hold on to his commission as long as life lasts-with more tenacity, apparently, sometimes than ordinary men adhere to it. The people do not understand that we are to support an aristocracy without daring to say to these officers "When your services are no longer needed they shall be dispensed with." I know there are old men in the service, men who have families, and who are capable in every respect of taking charge of some of these departments and perform the duties. These men I do not want to have

shoved out in the cold. But there are other men in the Army with ranks that they have no right to retain, not because they have not won it, not because we desire to degrade them, but because the country has no use for their rank or service.

man a question. When I used the word "pretense I did not mean to say that the committee was designedly trying to impose on the country, but only that that was the effect of the bill upon its face. Now, I will ask the gentleman this question: Is it not a fact that during the late war when an order from the Secretary of War was issued for the consolidation of regi

dated regiments to muster out the surplus offcers and non-commissioned officers? Is not that the fact?

Mr. GARFIELD. I have no doubt of that fact.

Why, sir, the gentleman is placed here in Congress by the vote of his constituents. Would he consider it an outrage to be left at home by them? I think, myself, it would be doing themselves a great injury, but they have a right to do it nevertheless, as have the constituents of each one of us here. Now, these officers have no more right to be retained for life because they have commissions given to them by the President than any other officer of the Government. Such a doctrine is the essence of aristocracy. You are maintaining an aristocracy in the organization of the Army, and the people are to become menials. Every officer in this country, whether civil or military, should be the servant of the people, and should be willing to yield obedience to their will, and when the people say they have no further use for their service they should acquiesce and decline to impose their services upon the people.

Sir, I am in favor of reducing the Army. How? By reducing the generals, the colonels, and other officers in the same ratio that you reduce the men in the Army. When you do that you will have just as many men as you have officers to command them, and just as many officers as you have necessity for in order to command your Army, and no more. [Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. GARFIELD. I oppose the amendment, and will close the debate in a few words. The gentleman, I am sure, does not desire to misrepresent what the bill proposes, and I was sorry to hear him say that the bill made only a pretense of reducing the Army when it did not really reduce it. There are now in the Army of the United States twenty-eight hundred and fifty-eight commissioned officers. This bill proposes to place seven hundred and eighty-five-more than one quarter of all those officers-on a list to be relieved from duty and placed on half pay.

Mr. LOGAN. That is exactly what I said. Mr. GARFIELD. That is equivalent to ceasing to pay three hundred and ninety-two

officers of the United States Army a dollar from this time forward. Now, if anybody will say that that is no reduction at all, I cannot understand his reasoning or his arithmetic.

There are now forty-five thousand enlisted men in the Army, and it is proposed that that number shall be reduced to twenty-five thousand. There are now forty-five regiments of infantry. It is proposed to reduce the number to thirty. There are ten cavalry regiments. It is proposed to reduce the number to seven. There are five regiments of artillery. It is proposed to reduce the number to four. The statement I have now made is a simple statement of the facts of the bill, and I am unwilling that it shall go to the country that the committee have brought in a bill which pretends to reduce but does not really reduce the Army and its expenditures. If the bill passes as reported by the committee it will reduce the annual expenses of the Army not far from fifteen million dollars per annum.

Mr. LOGAN. I would like to ask the gentle

Mr. LOGAN. I know I did it frequently. Then I would ask the gentleman, if, in the consolidation of regiments in front of the enemy, officers in commission were required to be mustered out, where is the hardship now in time of peace of mustering out officers in commission when we consolidate regiments and have a surplus of officers? That was the rule in the Army during the war, and I have mustered out many a one.

Mr. GARFIELD. I have several times in the course of this debate stated the distinction between a military peace establishment and an army in time of war. That distinction has always prevailed in the military service of the United States, and it seems to me not unrea. sonable that it should prevail now.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. I would ask the gentleman how many officers are mustered out by this bill?

Mr. GARFIELD. I have several times said that this bill does not propose absolutely to muster out any officers. The gentleman understands that very well. But I say that it reduces the aggregate pay of officers the same as if we mustered out three hundred and ninety-two officers absolutely.

Mr. PILE. In addition to the number of officers placed on the relieved list under this bill there will be a further reduction from the fact that no vacancies can be filled except by transfers from the relieved list to the active list. In the opinion of the Secretary of War a careful examination of the line of officers of the Army would result in the dismissal of a large number-probably one fourth of the whole number-that in fact many dismissals have recently been made for incompetence, drunkenness, or other immoralities. point I make is that we can reduce the number of officers to the required amount by weeding out by court-martial and a board of examination incompetent and worthless men, thus mustering out for cause a number equal to the number of supernumeraries, thereby saving the Army good officers and getting rid of worthless ones, all this can be accomplished in six months.

The

Mr. GARFIELD. I move now to close debate on this amendment.

The motion was agreed to.

The question was on the amendment offered by Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts, to strike out

in lines one and two the words "any vacancies which may hereafter occur in ;" in line ten to strike out the words "on the occurrence of a vacancy in each respectively," and to add to the section the following:

Provided, That in the offices abovenamed the present incumbents may continue therein at the last inentioned rank and pay.

So that the section will read :

SEC. 63. And be it further enacted, That the office of Adjutant General, Quartermaster General, Commissary General of Subsistence, chief of ordnanee, chief of engineers, Paymaster General, Surgeon General, or Bureau of Military Justice, shall be filled by the appointment or assignment of an officer who shall have the rank, pay and allowances of a colonel of cavalry. And all laws and parts of laws authorizing the appointment of any officer of a higher grade than colonel in any of said offices shall cease and determine: Provided, That in the office above named the present incumbents may continue therein at the last-mentioned rank and pay.

Mr. GARFIELD. The question is on degrading these officers.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. No; that is not a fair statement of the question. The

question is whether we shall pay brigadier generals when we only want colonels.

The question was put on the amendment; and there were-ayes 37, noes 20; no quorum voting.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts, and Mr. LOGAN called for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was again taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 84, nays 25, not voting 89; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Arnell, Axtell, Bailey, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Beatty, Benton, Boles, Boyer, Brooks, Benjamin F. Butler, Roderick R. Butler, Cary, Coburn, Covode, Cullom, Deweese, Eckley, Eldridge, Ferriss, Fields, Getz, Glossbreuner, Golladay, Grover, Hamilton, Hawkins, Ilinds, Hopkins, Hulburd, Hunter, Johnson, Alexander H. Jones, Judd, Julian, Kelsey, Knott, Koontz, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loan, Logan, Loughridge, Mallory, Marshall, McCarthy, McClurg, McKee, Miller, Moore, Morrell, Mullins, Mungen, Niblack, Orth, Perham, Paters, Phelps, Pike, Plants, Pomeroy, Price, Robertson, Ross, Sawyer, Scofield, Shanks, Smith, Stokes, Taber, Taffe, Thomas, Lawrence S. Trimble, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Van Trump, Ward, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Elibu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, and John T. Wilson--84.

NAYS-Messrs. Anderson, James M. Ashley, Bromwell, Churchill, Cobb, Dixon, Farnsworth, Griswold, Higby. Hooper, Chester D. Hubbard, Marvin, Myers, O'Neill, Paine, Pile, Poland, Raum, Schenck, Sitgreaves, Spalding, Stone, Trowbridge, Twichell, and James F. Wilson-25.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Adams, Allison, Ames, Archer, Delos R. Ashley, Barnes, Barnum, Beaman, Beck, Benjamin, Bingham, Blaine, Blair, Boutwell, Broomall, Buckland. Burr, Cake, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cook, Cornell, Dawes, Delano, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Eggleston, Ela, Eliot, Ferry, Finney, Fox, French, Garfield, Gravely, Haight, Halsey, Harding, Hill, Holman, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Humphrey, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Thomas L. Jones, Kelley, Kerr, Ketcham, Kitchen, Laflin, Lincoln, Lynch, Maynard, McCormick, McCullough, Mercur, Moorhead, Morrissey, Newcomb, Nicholson, Nunn, Polsley, Pruyn, Randall, Robinson, Roots. Selye, Shellabarger, Starkweather, Aaron F. Stevens, Thaddeus Stevens, Stewart, Taylor, John Trimble, Van Auken, Robert T. Van Horn, Van Wyck, Welker, Thomas Williams, William Williams, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, Wood, Woodbridge, and Woodward-89.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I move to further amend the section by adding to it the following:

That hereafter every officer in either of the staff departments above named, except as herein provided for the chief thereof, shall be reduced one step in grade down to the grade of captain, and shall receive pay and allowances accordingly.

The chief of staff departments having been reduced to the rank of colonel, this amend ment is to bring down one grade all the subordinate officers, until we get down to the grade of captain, so as to reduce men heretofore colonels to lieutenant colonels, men heretofore lieutenant colonels to majors, and men heretofore majors to captains. I now yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. PAINE.]

Mr. PAINE. I have already stated my opposition to the principle involved in this amendment. But if some such amendment is to be adopted, as I think will be the case, judg ing from the expression of opinion already made by the House, I propose to offer an amendment to the amendment which I think will put the matter in a better form; and I hope the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BCTLER] will accept it in lieu of the one he has offered, I propose to amend the amendment so that it will read as follows:

That from and after the passage of this act all officers of the staff departments of the Army shall have the rank, pay, and emoluments of the cavalry grade next below that fixed for the office by the aet entitled An act to increase and fix the military peace establishment of the United States," approved July 28, 1866.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I will accept the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. PAINE] in lieu of my amendment, because it reduces captains to lieutenants, going further than my amendment goes. The bill proposes to leave in the quartermaster's department six colonels, eleven lieutenant colonels, fifteen majors, and forty-four captains. Now, I propose that those six colonels shall come down to be lieutenant colonels; that the ten lieutenant colonels shall come down to be majors; that the fifteen majors

shall come down to be captains, and that the forty-four captains shall come down to be lieutenants. I do not intend by any means to retain all this swarm. I propose to offer an amendment to the eleventh section, reducing this force one half, which will be quite as much as we had before the war.

Mr. GARFIELD. I desire the gentleman from Massachusetts to explain how his proposition will operate in circumstances which I will state. He proposes to reduce a brigadier general to the rank of colonel; a colonel to the rank of lieutenant colonel; a lieutenant colonel to the rank of major; a major to the rank of captain, &c. Suppose a major, for instance, has just been put down from the rank of lieutenant colonel, will he be the highest major or the lowest major? To what extent would previous service count in such a case? I do not understand how the matter of relative rank would be regulated, this being an entirely new question in military administration. If the gentleman will explain how a lieutenant colonel major and a major major-if I may use that phraseology-would rank relatively to each other, it may obviate some little difficulty which I now see in his plan.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Far be it from me, Mr. Speaker, to undertake to instruct in military law the learned chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs; but in order to remove an argument which is made to the prejudice and not to the fact, I desire to say that the military law settles this whole matter. The higher officer will have been longer in the service and will take rank in accordance with his service.

Mr. GARFIELD. Not necessarily.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. If there is any difficulty in that respect I hope the learned chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, when he finds out what is the will of the House on this subject, will endeavor to relieve any little difficulty of that sort. There will be ample opportunity for examination and amendment; and if there is any difficulty of that sort (which I do not see) it can be obviated.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. GARFIELD. I send to the Clerk an amendment which I offer on behalfof the committee, as a new section, to come in after section six. I had intended to offer it as section eleven; but in view of the action already taken by the House it will come in more properly here.

The Clerk read as follows:

Insert the following as a new section:

And be it further enacted, That, in addition to the prospective reduction in the staff of the Army provided for in section six of the act, the following reduction shall be made in the number of officers in the staff now authorized by law.

The number of ass.stant quartermasters general with the rank of colonel shall be reduced to five. The number of deputy quartermasters general with the rank of lieutenant colonel shall be reduced to eight. The number of quartermasters with the rank of major shall be reduced to twelve. The number of assistant quartermasters with the rank of captain shall be reduced to thirty. The number of commissaries of subsistence with the rank of major shall be reduced to six. The number of commissaries of subsistence with the rank of captain shall be reduced to twelve. The number of assistant paymasters general shall be reduced to one. The number of paymasters shall be reduced to forty. The number of surgeons with the rank of major shall be reduced to forty. The number of assistant surgeons with the rank of captain shall be seventy-five. That in the ordnance

offered proposes to reduce to the number indicated the various grades in the staff corps. In the closing paragraph the mode of reduction is provided, which is to be the same as that provided in section eight of the bill. If, when

we come to that section, the House should see fit to change that mode of reduction, the new method would, of course, apply to this section, also. So the question of the mode of reduction need not be discussed now. It can all be covered in the discussion of the eighth section.

In recommending a reduction of the staff of the Army, the committee took into consideration how many officers there were in each corps before the war, when we had an Army of ten or twelve thousand men; then the number we now have with an Army of forty-five thousand men. From those two elements we have tried to determine what is the smallest number consistent with the necessities of an Army reduced as proposed in this bill. In regard to the quartermaster's department, I will state for the information of the House that there are now in service seventy-seven officers in that department. Before the war there were thirty

seven.

The committee propose to reduce the aggregate number to fifty-five, that being about half way between the old Army before the war and the Army as it now stands. The present organization of the department has six colonels. We propose to reduce the number to five. There are ten lieutenant colonels. We propose to reduce the number to eight. There are fifteen majors. We propose to reduce the number to twelve. There are forty-five captains, and we propose to fix the number at thirty. Then the quartermaster's department will be about half way between what it was before the war and what it is now, and as the Army will be nearly three times as large according to the provisions of this bill, we thought it only reasonable.

I will say to the House one thing further, and I feel it due to the committee that the statement should be made. The Secretary of War having recommended an increase of several of the staff corps, we have in our consideration of this question not reduced some of them as much as we reduce some others. The Committee on Military Affairs received a letter a few days ago asking that the present law requiring the gradual reduction of the quartermaster's department shall be repealed. It is asked that the officers in that department shall not be reduced; yet, sir, notwithstanding that recommendation, the committee propose the reduction here of one colonel, two lieutenant colonels, three majors, and fifteen captains. I trust the House will consent to no further reduction. It is very easy to denounce the Army and to commend retrenchment, and to be able to recommend a measure which will lighten the burdens of taxation is always a pleasant task for a Representative. I trust we shall not let that desire lead us to injure the noble Army which has been in great part created out of the precious materials of the great volunteer Army which saved the nation.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I move to amend so that the whole number of officers serving in the above-named staff department shall be reduced one half, and the other officers to be retained shall be designated by the General of the Army. I will not now discuss this

to two, of lieutenant colonels to three, of majors to seven, of captains to eighteen, of first lieutenants to fourteen, of second lieutenants to eight. And immediately upon the passage of this act the Secretary of War shall prepare lists of all the officers now in active service in each of the staff corps in excess of the number in each grade authorized by the provisions of this section, said lists to be made in accordance with the provisions of the eighth and ninth sections of this act; and all officers so placed on said lists shall be in like manner relieved on half pay.

Mr. GARFIELD. I propose that we consider this amendment by paragraphs. The SPEAKER. If there be no objection that course will be pursued.

There was no objection.

The Clerk read the paragraph in regard to the quartermaster's department.

Mr. GARFIELD. The amendment I have

in another section.. We have, or shall have, in our Army now about twenty-eight thousand men. We have of cavalry, as estimated by the Secretary of War, five thousand four hundred and fifty-five men; of artillery, three thousand four hundred and eighty-oue men, and twenty thousand six hundred and thirty-one infantry. That is the way it will stand on the 1st of January.

Mr. GARFIELD. That is what it will be under the present law.

M. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I understand that well enough. I know what I am saying. My friend from Missouri [Mr. PILE] says officers are being so reduced by drunkenness and misconduct that if we do not pass any bill they

Mr. PILE rose.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. The gentleman has been heard, and I cannot yield to him. I have not the time.

Mr. PILE. I hope, then, the gentleman will not misrepresent me.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. The gentleman's remarks will be in the Globe and so will mine. He stated expressly that if the drunkenness and misconduct of the Army continued it would be reduced. Now, I find while the committee propose to reduce largely on captains they propose to reduce only one colonel. They propose to reduce largely on captains but only two or three majors. What I want is a clean thing. If six colonels are necessary for forty majors, then it does not require more than three colonels for twenty-two majors. If twenty-two majors are necessary for seventysix captains, it does not require but one half as many majors for half the number of captains. The difficulty is, there is an attempt on the part of the committee to save these higher officers. Now, I am for reducing them by cutting them down fairly and squarely, doing justice like fate. If it is right to reduce at all it is right to reduce all alike. Evenhanded justice is what I demand. Therefore I propose an amendment to cut down squarely one half right through. The committee reduce the lowest grades almost one third, and the upper grades of generals, colonels, and lieutenant colonels, who attend balls and parties here in the winter, or have social and political influence in Washington, who stick like leeches, because of their influence are reduced very little. As many as are wanted for the good of the service let us keep. I propose that Congress shall be just in its measures, and cut off all alike squarely. Make the deduction one third or one half; settle the question as to what shall be the deduction, but when you have done so strike as the justice of God strikes, directly, and not yield this way or that to save personal, political, or social favorites.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. PILE. I rise to oppose the amendment simply for the purpose of saying that what I intended to say and what I think I did say with reference to the process of reduction was this: that it was the opinion of the Secretary of War and my opinion, from information received at the War Office, that a careful and rigid examination would reduce for cause the subordinate officers of the Army now in service one fourth; that at the rate dismissals had been occurring recently, some of them for crime, others for drunkenness, and others for absence without leave, or other acts of misconduct, the reduction in the course of eight or ten months would approximate one fourth. Now, the number of officers rendered supernumerary by the provisions of this bill is a little more than one fourth, so that by the time the major generals, for whose dismissal or muster out the bill as amended by the House provides, shall have been relieved, if we shall amend section eight so as to appoint a board of officers to examine the qualification of officers and their fitness for retention, at the rate of reduction now going on by the causes alluded to we shall have a reduction of one fourth. Now, I think this would much better conserve the real interest of the country by promoting the efficiency of the Army than any wholesale muster out of supernumerary officers, whether beginning at the top of the list as to rank or at the bottom.

Mr. AXTELL. I wish to ask the gentleman a question. When an officer is mustered out for drunkenness or incompetency, does his place become vacant, and is it to be filled by somebody else?

Mr. PILE. Under the law, as it now stands, it becomes vacant, but if the theory of this bill is adopted there will be no vacancies except such as occur in the reduced number of regiments; and all supernumerary officers will be placed on the relieved list and relieved from

active list from the causes alluded to will be filled by a transfer from the relieved list of officers selected by the War Department for that purpose, and by that process the number of officers will be reduced until by the 31st of March next, at the rate now going on, by weeding out incompetent, inefficient, and improper officers, and the selection of others to take their places from the lists of relieved officers, we will get rid of the supernumeraries and have left the very best officers in the Army. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I desire to offer an amendment in lieu of the section. Mr. GARFIELD. We proceed by paragraphs, and the amendment is therefore not in order now.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Then I ask to have it read for information. Mr. GARFIELD. Very well. The Clerk read the amendment, as follows: That the whole number of officers serving in the above-named staff department shall be reduced one half, the officers retained to be designated by the General of the Army; and those not selected to be retained shall be mustered out on the 10th day of March next.

Mr. GARFIELD. I object to that as not being germane to the section.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment first offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BUTLER.]

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I withdraw it till the section is gone through.

The question being taken on the paragraph offered by the committee, it was agreed to. The Clerk read the following paragraphs of the section:

The number of commissaries of subsistence with the rank of major shall be reduced to six.

The number of commissaries of subsistence with the rank of captain shall be reduced to twelve. The number of assistant paymasters general shall be reduced to one.

The number of paymasters shall be reduced to forty.

The number of surgeons with the rank of major shall be reduced to forty.

On this

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. question of paymasters I want to call attention to the fact that the committee do not propose to have more than thirty regiments in the line of infantry, and I hope the House will never agree to more than twenty regiments of infantry, and more than five of cavalry and three of artillery. If those regiments are full they will give you an army of twenty-nine thousand six hundred men. The regiments reported by the committee call, when full, for forty-four thousand four hundred men. The committee only provide for twenty-five thousand men in this bill by another section, but they do not cut down the number of regiments to call for the proper number of men only. They propose to keep a large number of the regiments half full, the effect of which is to enable them to retain double the number of officers. It is the old sore shot which we have been probing, all the while holding on trying to save the officers. There are sixty-four paymasters now to pay those regiments, and they do not propose to cut them down to less than forty-five. Now, why cannot one paymaster do more than pay one thousand men when the rolls are all made out for him? I should like to know why, especially when each one of these paymasters has a clerk at a large salary, who generally knows more than the paymaster about the business. That has been my experience. The clerk and company officers do all the work. Now, why should this be allowed to go on. In a manufacturing establishment in Lowell, for $1,500 a year we can find a man who can pay off fifteen hundred hands every month, and keep all their accounts without any clerk. He is clerk for all hands. I hear gentlemen say that the men he pays are all in one house. So they are, but they have to be paid every month. Their wages have to be carried to one cent and odd cents, and the whole record has to be kept for monthly payments. It is eight times as much work as it is to pay a regiment. I have seen a paymaster pay a regiment in an hour and a half. The sums

are generally all even, the men's names are signed on the pay-roll beforehand, and the men just walk in and take their money, and away they go almost as fast as they can march past the paymaster. And yet we are told here that we must not cut down substantially the number of paymasters.

Now, I am not going to discuss each one of these propositions, because at last I propose to offer my amendment, which is to cut down all the staff departments one half. I have here a list of general and staff officers in the register of 1867, and there are six hundred and fifty-one, which to an army of twenty-five thousand men is one staff officer to every thirtyeight men. There are sixty-four ordnance men, one hundred and seven engineers, one hundred and seventy-four surgeons, or one to every two hundred and odd men, and seventysix quartermasters. They propose to reduce the number of these officers but one per cent. in the higher grades and twelve per cent. in the lower grades. I do not propose to attempt to perfect the section. Let gentlemen of the committee put their section in the shape in which they want it, and when they get through I shall move to cut down one third or one half, right straight through, serving all alike.

No amendments were offered, and the Clerk read the remaining paragraphs of the section, as follows:

The number of assistant surgeons, the rank of captain, shall be seventy-five:

That in the ordnance department the number of colonels shall be reduced to two; of lieutenant colonels to three; of majors to seven; of captains to eighteen of first lieutenants to fourteen; and of second lieutenants to eight.

And immediately upon the passage of this act the Secretary of War shall prepare lists of all the officers now in active service in each of the staff corps, in excess of the number in each grade authorized by the provisions of this section. Said list to be made in accordance with the provisions of the eighth and ninth sections of this act; and all officers so placed on said lists shall be in like manner relieved on balf pay.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I now. offer the substitute for the section which I send to the Chair, and I ask a vote upon it. The Clerk read as follows:

That the whole number of officers serving in the above-named staff departments shall be reduced one half, the officers retained to be designated by the General of the Army, and those not selected to be retained shall be mustered out on the 10th day of March next.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I desire to call the attention of the House to the difference between the modes of selection provided by the Committee on Military Affairs, and by the amendment. The chairman of the committee [Mr. GARFIELD] proposes to have the selection made in this way: to have a list of these staff officers made out, and then have the selection of those to be mustered out or retained made from the youngest in office. The cat under that meal is this: that the youngest officers being volunteer officers who have lately been appointed since the war, every volunteer officer on these staff departments will be swept out, and the old Army officers kept in. That is exactly what is meant here. Eternal vigilance is the price of safety" for the volunteer officers in our Army. I want to have this understood by the House. The effect of this section reported by the committee will be to turn out of office every volunteer officer who has been appointed for gallant and meritorious services in either of these staff departments. I heard here last night a very high eulogy upon the regular Army. Now, I am not going to say a word against the regular Army, but I am going to state a few facts. I insist that it was the volunteer army that did the fighting in the late war; and I will prove it, and will not be long about it either.

I hold in my hand the Army Register, which has their own brag records on the tops of the pages; I do not think they are very near correct, but it is their own story. I will state some facts from that register. When the war ended there was not a single regular regiment of infantry in either of the great armies of the

Cumberland under Sherman, of the Tennessee under Thomas, of the James and of the Potomac under Grant. Now, let us see if I do the regular Army injustice, for I would not do it for the world. I knew a great many brave and gallant officers in the regular Army-many commanding volunteers also-and there were a great many that-I will not say anything about.

The first regiment of regular infantry fought their last battle during the rebellion on the 4th of July, 1863, and was not any more in active service in that war. The second regiment fought their last battle in the war on the 12th and 14th of May, 1864, and saw no more active service. The third regiment fought their last battle in the war on the 2d and 3d of July, 1863, and saw no more active service. The fourth regiment fought their last battle in the war on the 17th and 20th of June, 1864, and saw no more active service. The fifth regiment of regular infantry fought their last battle in the war on the 15th of April, 1862. The sixth regiment fought their last battle on the 2d and 3d of July, 1863, and saw no more active service. The seventh regiment fought their last battle in the war on the 2d and 3d of July, 1863. The eighth regiment fought their last battle in the war on the 9th of August, 1862, at Cedar mountain. The ninth regiment was stationed on the Pacific coast, during the rebellion, and saw no active service at all so far as the rebellion was concerned. The tenth regiment of regular infantry fought their last battle in the war on the 1st of October, 1864, and saw no more active service. The eleventh regiment fought their last battle on the 18th and 21st of August, 1864. The twelfth regiment fought their last battle on the the 1st of October, 1864. The thirteenth regiment fought their last battle in the war on the 24th and 25th of November, 1864. The fourteenth regiment fought their last battle in the war on the 19th and 21st of August, 1864. The fifteenth and sixteenth regiments fought their last battles on the 1st of September, 1864. The seventeenth regiment fought its last battle on the 18th and 21st of August, 1864. The eighteenth regiment fought their last battle on the 1st of September, 1864. The nineteenth regiment fought their last battle in the month of August, 1864. The twentieth regiment fought their last battle on the 18th and 21st of August, 1864. The twenty-first regiment fought their last battle on the 1st of || October, 1864. The twenty-second regiment fought their last battle in the war on the 24th and 25th of November, 1863. The twentythird regiment fought their last battle on the 19th and 21st of August, 1864. The twentyfourth regiment fought their last battle on the 1st of September, 1864. The twenty-fifth regiment fought their last battle on the 1st of September, 1864. The twenty-sixth regiment fought their st battle in the war on the 21st of August, 1864.

[Here the hammer fell.]

The SPEAKER. The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Very well; it is the same with the rest of the regi

ments.

I

Mr. GARFIELD. I confess myself unable to understand the operation of the mind of any man who sees in almost every proposition that other men offer something that warrants him in calling it a "cat under the meal." have not been accustomed so to look at life and business and the doings of my fellow-men. I take it for granted generally, when a committee of the House of Representatives proposes a bill, that the committee consists of honorable men who bring us no "cats under the neal;" and therefore it never occurs to me to hunt for them.

I felt that the Committee on Military Affairs, in bringing in a proposition to reduce the staff department of the Army by dispensing with one hundred and ten men now in service, were doing a thing which would commend itself as a measure of economy-of severe retrenchment. But the gentleman from Massachusetts thinks this low and poor and mean as a meas

ure of retrenchment. He discovers in the proposition "cats" and "meal" in any numbers and any quantities; and in order to show that the persons legislated about in this bill are men not very worthy of the consideration of this Congress or of the country, he undertakes to tell when the several regiments went out of active service in the late war. And how does he ascertain it? Why, he opens the Army Register, containing a little brief of the battles in which each regiment participated, and when he discovers the date of the last great battle they fought for only the great battles are named-he indicates that as the period when that regiment ceased to do any worthy or honorable service. This treatment of the Army is no more just than it would be for me to'raise the question when any honorable gentleman here fought his last battle of the war, and then say that that should be considered the time when he ceased to do honorable and meritorious service for the country. Sir, it cannot be considered just reasoning to say that the last great battle in which any regiment happened to be mentioned was the date at which it went out of the Army or out of honorable and active service in the late war.

Now, here is another specimen of the "catin the meal" argument in which the gentleman deals. He says the Committee on Military Affairs propose to reduce the staff about one per cent. in the higher grades, and about twelve per cent. in the very lowest grades. He wants the committee and the House to strike the Army at the top. He has great sympathy for all but those whom the country has honored by placing them in important stations of trust and responsibility.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I desire to say that in his own propositions offered during the consideration of this bill, the gentleman does not ask us to act thus in regard to the two highest officers of the Army; but only after we get below those in high political positions does he propose to strike down the Army.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Is it not true, as I have said, that your bill would turn out all the volunteer officers?

Mr. GARFIELD. By no means. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. explain why not?

Will you

Mr. GARFIELD. Let me notice, in the first place, the remark of the gentleman that the bill would strike off one per cent. of the higher grades and twelve per cent. of the lower. In the case of the head of a Department, consisting of a single officer, how can you make a reduction unless it be a reduction of one hun

dred per cent. How can you reduce the number of colonels in a given department when there are only two, unless you make a reduction of fifty per cent. This is an answer to all that argument, if it be an argument at all.

We have proposed, Mr. Speaker, a reduction which I am very sure every man who has ever held the position of Secretary of War will say is the very extreme of reduction which the interests of the service will allow. We propose to reduce the staff corps by one hundred and ten officers; and all these are officers who by reason of their long service in their respective positions are in a great degree indispensable to the administration of the Army. Yet the gentleman proposes by the simple rule of division to make a reduction of one half.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I call attention to the fact that the gentleman has not answered my question as to the volunteer officers.

On the substitute of Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts, for the amendment offered by Mr. GARFIELD, there were-ayes 35, noes 36; no quorum voting.

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts, called for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 66, nays 54; not voting 78; as follows:

YEAS-Mosers. Ames, Arnell, Axtell, Bailey,

Baker, Banks, Beatty, Benton, Benjamin F. Butler, Roderick R. Butler, Cary, Sidney Clarke, Coburn, Cook, Covode, Cullom, Delano, Deweese, Donnelly, Ela, Eldridge, Ferriss, Fields, Getz, Glessbrenner, Golladay, Grover, Hinds, Hopkins, Hulburd. Hunter, Johnson, Judd, Julian, Kelsey, Kitchen, Koontz, William Lawrence, Loan, Logan, Loughridge, Marshall, McKee, Mullins, Niblack, Orth, Perham, Plants, Roots, Ross, Scofield, Shanks, Smith, Thaddeus Stevens, Stokes, Taffe. Thomas, Lawrence S. Trimble, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Van Trump, Henry D. Washburn, Welker, William Williams, John T. Wilson, and Windom-66.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baldwin, Benjamin. Blair, Boles, Bromwell, Churchill, Cobb, Dawes, Dixon. Driggs, Eckley, Eliot, Farnsworth, French, Garfield, Griswold, Higby, Hooper, Chester D. Hubbard, Alexander H. Jones, Thomas L. Jones, Ketcham, George V. Lawrence, Mallory, Marvin, Maynard, McCarthy, Miller, Moore, Morrell, Mungen, O'Neill. Paine, Peters, Phelps, Pile, Poland, Pomeroy, Raum, Schenck, Spalding, Starkweather, Stone, Taber, Twichell, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward. Elihu B. Washburne William B. Washburn, and James F. Wilson-54.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Allison, Archer, Barnes, Barnum, Beaman. Beck, Bingham, Blaine, Boutwell, Boyer, Brooks. Broomall, Buckland, Burr, Cake, Chanier, Reader W. Clarke, Cornell, Dodge, Eggleston, Ferry, Finney, Fox, Gravely, Haight, Halsey, Hamilton, Harding, Hawkins, Hill, Holman, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Humphrey, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Kelley, Kerr, Knott, Laflin, Lincoln, Lynch, McClurg, McCormick, McCullough, Mercur, Moorhead, Morrissey, Myers, Newcomb, Nicholson, Nunu, Pike, Polsley, Price, Pruyn, Randall, Robertson, Robinson, Sawyer, Selye, Shellabarger, Sitgreaves, Aaron F. Stevens, Stewart, Taylor, John Trimble, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Auken, Van Wyck, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Thomas Williams, Stephen F. Wilson, Wood, Woodbridge, and Woodward-78.

So the substitute of Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts, was agreed to.

The amendment, as amended, was adopted. Mr. GARFIELD. I move the following as an additional section:

And be it further enacted, That the organization of the Bureau of Military Justice shall bereafter consist of one Judge Advocate General, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of a colonel: one Assistant Judge Advocate General, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of a lieutenant colonel, and eight Assistant Judge Advocates General, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of a major; and all promotions and appointments hereafter made in said bureau shall be in accordance with the provisions of this section. The amendment was agreed to.

ENROLLED BILL AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS.

Mr. HOPKINS, from the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that they had examined and found truly enrolled a bill and joint resolutions of the following titles; when the Speaker signed the same:

An act (S. No. 307) for the relief of certain Government contractors;

Joint resolution (S. R. No. 81) placing certain troops of Missouri on an equal footing with others as to bounties; and

Joint resolution (S. R. No. 107) in relation to the Maquoketa river, in the State of Iowa.

MILITARY PEACE ESTABLISHMENT-AGAIN.

The Clerk read the next section, as follows: SEC. 7. And be it further enacted. That hereafter the line of the Army shall consist of thirty regiments of infantry, soven regiments of cavalry, and four regiments of artillery; said regiments to have the same organization as now provided by law, except as hereinafter provided.

Mr. GARFIELD. I move to add the following:

Provided, That three regiments of colorod infantry and one regiment of eolored cavalry, the officers for such regiments to be selected by seniority from officers of infantry and cavalry respectively now belonging to the regiments of colored troops, and not less than two thirds of the officers and enlisted men of the Veteran Reserve corps shall be retained in the service.

Mr. GARFIELD. I wish to say a word in regard to that amendment. There were four regiments in the infantry arm provided for in the bill under which the Army was reorganized of persons who have been wounded in the service. They constitute what are called the Veteran Reserve corps. Every one of the

officers and men has some honorable scar received in battle. It did not occur to the committee when the bill was first drafted that it might sweep all of those men out of the service. We now propose that at least two thirds of the officers and enlisted men of the Veteran Reserve corps shall be retained in the service. That will allow only of the mustering out of

one regiment. There are also six regiments of colored troops, four infantry and two cavalry, the enlisted men being colored soldiers. We do not propose to disturb the present proportions of the Army in that regard. We propose there shall be three colored regiments of infantry and one regiment of colored cavalry. I now yield to my colleague on the committee to offer an amendment.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. I wish to move an amendment that all the regiments of the Veteran Reserve corps shall be retained.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will reduce his amendment to writing.

Mr. SCHENCK. I have an amendment here which, I think, will meet with the gentleman's acceptance. It is to insert in this section at the end of the second line, "four of which shall be regiments of the Veteran Reserve corps, and four regiments of colored troops.'

Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. I accept that. It is an amendment which should be adopted. Every officer in that corps has been wounded or disabled in the service of the country. If any individuals have any claim on the Army it is these wounded and disabled officers. They are in the Army and they should not be mustered out. If any one is turned out or dropped from the Army it should not be those who have been wounded and disabled in the service. If any are to be turned out rather let it be the robust and able-bodied who can take care of themselves, and not the wounded officers and soldiers who have fought and suffered for the country. If they are turned out they will become pensioners. If they were not in the Army they would be drawing pensions, and we are saving money by keeping them there.

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE.

A message from the Senate, by Mr. GORHAM, its Secretary, announced that that body had disagreed to the amendments of the Senate to sundry bills concerning pensions, asked a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and had ordered that Messrs. VAN WINKLE, TRUMBLE, and EDMUNDS, be the conferees on the part of the Senate.

The message further announced that the Senate had agreed to the committee of confercnce on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (H. R. No. 605) making appropritions for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1869.

Also, that the Senate had passed without amendment the following bills and a joint resolution of the House:

A bill (H. R. No. 1119) for the registration and enrolment of certain foreign vessels;

A bill (H. R. No. 201) declaratory of the law in regard to officers cashiered from the Army by sentence of a general court-martial;

A bill (H. R. No. 1080) for the relief of Edward B. Allen; and

Joint resolution (H. R. No. 281) authorizing the issue of clothing to company F, eighteenth regiment United States infantry.

The message further announced that the Senate had passed bills of the following titles, in which the concurrence of the House was requested:

A bill (S. No. 567) relative to the Freedmen's Bureau, and providing for its discontinuance; and

A bill (S. No. 16) devoting a portion of the Fort Leavenworth reservation for the exclusive use of a public road.

CONTRACTS FOR COAL.

The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter from the Secretary of the Navy, transmitting, in compliance with House resolution of the 6th instant, a communication from the chief of the Bureau of Equipment and Repairs, relative to contracts for the purchase of coal; which was referred to the Committee on Re trenchment, and ordered to be printed.

TRUSTEES OF COLORED SCHOOLS.

The SPEAKER also laid before the House a communication from the trustees of colored

schools of Washington and Georgetown, District of Columbia, remonstrating against the passage by the House of Representatives of the bill (H. R. No. 609) transferring the duties of trustees of colored schools of Washington and Georgetown to the trustees of public schools.

On motion of Mr. WELKER, the communication was referred to the Committee for the District of Columbia.

MILITARY PEACE ESTABLISHMENT.

The House resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 1377) to reduce and fix the military peace establishment.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will state the condition of the question: the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GARFIELD] moved an amendment in the nature of a proviso to the section. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. WASHBURN] proposes to amend the original text. That will be reserved till after the former is considered, as it is not an amendment to an amendment.

Mr. GARFIELD. I withdraw my amend ment till the other is voted upon. I now yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BOUTWELL.]

ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I report back from the Committee on Reconstruction the joint resolution (S. No. 139) excluding from the Electoral College votes of States lately in rebellion which shall not have been reorganized, with amend

ments.

The SPEAKER. The consideration of this resolution at this time requires unanimous consent. Is there objection?

Mr. PHELPS. I object.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I move to postpone the bill under consideration in regard to the reduction of the Army for the purpose of reporting the joint resolution.

The motion was agreed to; and the House proceeded to the consideration of the joint resolution reported by Mr. BOUTWELL.

The joint resolution was read as follows: Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives, &c., That none of the States whose inhabitants were lately in rebellion, and which States are not now represented in Congress, shall be entitled to representation in the Electoral College for the choice of President or Vice President of the United States. nor shall any electoral vote be received or counted from any of such States unless at the time prescribed by law for the choice of electors the people of such States, pursuant to the acts of Congress in that behalf, shall have, since the 4th day of March, 1867, adopted a constitution of State government under which a State government shall have been organized and shall be in operation, and unless such election of electors shall have been held under the authority of such constitution and government, and such States shall have also become entitled to representation in Congress, pursuant to the acts of Congress in that behalf.

Mr. BOUTWELL. The Committee on Reconstruction have directed me to move the following amendments:

nor.

Strike out the words "and which States are not now represented in Congress." Strike out the word "and" after the word "operation." and insert the word Add the following proviso: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to apply to any State which was represented in Congress on the 4th of March, 1867.

So that the joint resolution, as amended, will read as follows:

That none of the States whose inhabitants were lately in rebellion shall be entitled to representation in the Electoral College for the choice of President or Vice President of the United States, nor shall any electoral vote be received or counted from any of such States, unless at the time prescribed by law for the choice of electors the people of such States, pursuant to the acts of Congress in that behalf, shall have, since the 4th day of March, 1867, adopted a constitution of State government, under which a State government shall have been organized and shall be in operation, nor unless such election of electors shall have been held under the authority of such constitution and government; and such States shall have also become entitled to representation in Congress, pursuant to the acts of Congress in that behalf.

Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to apply to any State which was represented in Congress on the 4th of March, 1867.

Mr. BOUTWELL. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this resolution is so apparent from the reading that I presume the House will be prepared to vote upon it without any explanation. The

object is, of course, to provide that all those States which may be admitted previous to November next, shall be entitled to vote for electors of President and Vice President; and that the States, if any, which shall not then have been restored to the Union shall be excluded from participation in the presidential election. The text of the resolution would exclude Tennessee, inasmuch as she was fully restored to the Union previous to the passage of the original act concerning reconstruction. The sole object of the proviso reported by the Committee on Reconstruction is to relieve Tennessee from the terms of the resolution.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. Will the gentleman from Massachusetts inform the House by what authority this House or the Congress can undertake to exclude any State from the right of representa tion in the Electoral College? Under what provision of the Constitution can Congress declare that a State shall not be represented? The gentleman seems to think this a very plain matter, and one on which, I infer from his remarks, the House should vote under the operation of the previous question; and yet the gentleman has not undertaken to give us the authority by which Congress can exclude a State from representation in the Electoral College. I would be glad to hear from him on that point and to understand upon what he bases the authority of this Congress to act in that behalf.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I cannot go at great length into all the circumstances by which these States, through the influence of the gentleman's political friends, lost their representation in the Congress of the United States; but it so happened that they did withdraw seven or eight years ago and they have not yet been readmitted to representation here. But I say to him that I suppose the purpose of the majority here, and, I take it, the purpose of the country unmistakably is to hold these States in the grasp of the loyal people of the country until they are reconstructed under loyal influences, with loyal majorities, loyal State governments, and until loyal Representatives and Senators are elected to Congress, and when all those things have transpired, then, as I suppose, these States are to participate in the elec tion of President and Vice President of the United States.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. The gentleman from Massachusetts has certainly not answered, if he has attempted to answer, the question which I propounded to him. I ask him for the authority by which Congress may exclude States from their representation in the Electoral College, and he tells us that by the action of myself and my friends these States have ceased to be in a position whereby they have a right to vote or to act in this capacity. The gentleman need not tell this House any such thing as that, for he knows, and I know and God knows that it is not so. [Laughter on the Republican side of the House.] I tell the gentleman from Massachusetts that the war was a success against the rebellion, and these States were saved to the Union, and he cannot humbug me or this Congress or the people by declaring that we have kept them out or that we have taken any step that has that effect. I say to the gentleman that every State that ever belonged to this Union is to-day in this Union.

Mr. MULLINS. I advise the gentleman not to call on God about this question.

Mr. ELDRIDGE. The gentleman will not interfere with me I trust. We shall be enlightened by his eloquence when the gentleman from Massachusetts yields the floor to him. [Laughter.]

I say, that if the States are kept out at all, they are kept out, as the gentleman asserts, by the grasp of what he terms "loyal” men upon the throats of the States. I deny that loyal men hold any States in their grasp except the States in which they live. The loyal men of Massachusetts have no more right to hold the State of South Carolina by the throat than the State of South Carolina has the right to hold the State of Massachusetts by the throat, and prevent her from voting in the Electoral Col