Reorganizing The Army

Condenscd from tho CougrPHuion&l ProoecdlngB.] The House went into committee of the whole, with Mr. Springer in the chair, n the Army Appropriation bill. Mr. Spaaks, a nirniber of tho Approjriation Committee, supporied tho bill. 'he attompt of the committee to reorjanize the army hns been met with sensational nimors about an Indian uprisng. There was no foundation for these umors. Coming down to the quostion of the use of the army in snppressing lomestic violenec, ho had rend n portion of the repoit of the Secretary of War, n wliieh he declares that the army iiould be to tho United States what a ocal pohco is to a city. If tho Secreary meant that riots should be snp)ressed by the regular army, ho would nost emphatically dissent from that. !t was in contravention of tho republican theory of governuient. Tho great middlc mass of the people would proct the country from riots. The money monopoly could oppress labor, and cotüd )riug about a state of thiogs whieh it was manhood to rcsist. Then tho middle masa might sympathize with labor, ut when labor got boyond the bounds of what it could lcgitimately demand - when it became Communistic and incenliary - then the great body of quiet middlemen would put its hand upon and crash it out. Mr. Phillips said the Appropriation Committee had come forward with an almost revolutionary measure, with an attempt to cut down the standing army. Referring to the danger of Indian hostilities, he said the army was needed to preserve the peaco of the frontier, and to give settlers security which had never been given to them. Withiu fifteen monthfi two of tho most terrible Indian yars known to tho history of the country had taken place, and yet the gentleman from New York (Hewitt) had told the House that there would bc no more Indian wars. Tliat gentleman seenied to havo been reading about the millen nium, and thought that swords were to be beaten into plow-sbares and spears into pruning-hooks. Mr. Banning, Chairman of tho Committee on Military Affairs, spoke in advoeaoy of the bill. He referred to Gen. Sherman's New York speech last summer, to the eñect tliat without a regular anny the nation would be a mob; and tO the report of the Secretary of War, as to tho necespity of an arniy in maintaining peace aud suppressing riots, and he expressed hifi decided dissent from those doctrines which would result (lie said) in converting what was a government of the people into a government of force. He referred to the charge of dishonesty made against him by what ho called Jay Gould's newspaper, and said that tUere were in this country two iindif of Conimunists - composed of thoso who want to steal food aud raiment, aud the other composod of thoso who, sitting in coraiortohle urin-chairs, steal railroads. This last class wanted the army to enabJo them to keep their ill-gotten gain. It ws uecessnry pcrhaps for them. Oommunism came from bad administration. The Credit Mobilier, the Paciñc Mail subsidy, tho salary grab; and, above all, the theft of the Presidency, had made men believe that there was no honesty left in tho adniinistration of affairs. It was these big Communists who needed a largo arniy to protect them. For his part he was in favor of a chango iu conducting the old sliip of state in bringing the idministration of the Government back to the days of the fathers and to honesty. In conclusión he appcalcd to the House to pass the bill, as it would give the country a better, more efficiënt and less expensive army. Mr. Butler spoke next. He said the country was approaching a crisis, which, if not guardeïl against and provided for, would produce a eondition of affairs wherein conatitutional considerations would bo as powerless as they wero in 1861. What was needed was that tho, gift of land in the Homestead law should be made remedial in this time of present distress. There had been no subsidies, and no dividends, no Credit Mobiliers for labor, but only sweat and toil. He analjzed the expenditures of the Government for the last five years, and said they had averaged $445,000,000 a year, not appropriated.but expended, and ho challenged referenco to any subst&ntial appropriation in that time for the direct benefit of tho industrial classes. There was little time or iterest expended iu Congress over tho condition of labor. Even in the Federal courts there was no protoction for the laboring man. Thousands of laborera might be slaughtcred, as they had recently been in one portiou of the country, aud the courts could not punish the crimináis, and it was unconstihitiona 1 to use the army for tliat purpose; but let a few laborers imjjede for an hour the courso of commerce, or destroy or threaten the property of commercial eorporations, and the treasury opened wide its doors, swinging on goldi:n hinges.and the whole military power of the nation wns called forth to put down riot, arrest crimináis, and protect property. Mr. GarfieU followed Mr. Butler. He contended that, even in the absence of hostile operations, the country needed at least au army large enough to keep alive practical knowledge of military affairs in this country, and, in coatradiction of the statement made the other day by Mr. Hewitt (New York), he declared that the country had leía defensivo force to-day than it had in 1810. Then there were 205, on tho average, to garrison a post. Now there were but 250 men. Hewitt compared it with 1860, when there wero but 140 men to a post. Mr. Garfleld went on to say that the force of an army on paper had always to be reduced oue-third to get at the eífective force. When an army of 20,000 was reduced by one-third there would be a very daugerously small army in a country like this. He quoted aud criticized Hcwitt's remarks about strikes, wherein Hewitt had proclaimed the right of men to say that they would not work for certaia wages. No American had ever disputed tliat. The gentleman had set up a man of straw, and had attacked him valorously. The dangorous element in those labor strikes was the interference to prevent others from working; and for liimsclf he declared that the man who luid any obstacle iu the way of auother American workiug was a breaker of tl ie law and a violator of tho first right of labor. Mr. Banks - How is it with capitalists who combine against labor ? Mr. Garfield - That is just as great a violatiou of law, and is deserving of just as great, and posoibly greater condemnatiou. He queted Lord Mauiuiley's letter to the author of tho biography of Thomas Jeflerson, in which ho prophesied the uttor ruin of institutions based upon tho vote oí' poople, counted by the head, and proceeding upon tho supposition that rich and poor, wisc and unwise, learned aud uulearned, the criminul and innocent, the vicious and good, wfro all couuted as units together, and ho confessed tliat that letter was often ringing in his ear liko an ularm-bell in the middlo of tlie night. What Amorican, he asked, who over read tbat lotter, did not recolleot it last Hiiminer, when a belt of States, reachiug from occan to ocean, were held under ban ; when uo one knew whether the torpjb was to m:rk the pathway of America or whether order and peace were to prevail ? He did not, himself, believe iu that doctiiuo of Mocaulay's. MnCiUilny cculd uot kuow the tremendous powt'r ol' universal edueation vfaioo eüligh) ncd, cihioIiIimI, and fttted iorJiberty the pcopleof theXJnitfd States. There was no boy jn Amsñqa, howover poor he might be, who, undVt the light of freo iutititutions, might not rise ií be Jiad a brave Ueart, a cool head. and strong"arm, until he was amoug the foremost of his generation and among the best people. It was for tkafc reaou he diil not fear the Cassandra prophecy of Macaulay. But, gentlemen, gaid he. with great solemnity of pianne-, the time will come when wë wiïï find it neeessary to fight for society. Wliile I would do as nrach ns I inight to seonro the rights of laborera against the iniqüity of lnw and the crushing power of capital, still, againat all corners, I amfor the reign of law in this republic, and for enough of an army to niuke it sure. Therefore, I hope that our good friend from New York (Hewitt), whose stake ia the stability and good order of the nation is greatcr than my own (inasmuoh as in a material way he is inñnitely beyond my reach), will help to make that stake secure for the conntry, and when tkat timo comes the very touch and sigual of that contest dissolves political purties as a knel), and all men spring to the defense of society against anarchy, of order against chaos, of law against the torch. And now, gentlemen, where is the power that comes in in the final struggle to protect and save socioty, if it be notour constitution, and in the pólice power which the United States Government can give at the snpreme moment, when States are powerless and when cities are being consumed to ashes ? I hope he will consent to let an amendment be made to tho bill that will flx the army at 25,000, and that he will let the bilí be recommitted, so that all its other parts may be adjusted in conformity therewith.