The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-03-27
Debates ON the Deficiency Bill.


ing called upon to peruse reports of the five
minutes speeches with which the members of
the House have for many days past amused
themselves on TOPICS more or less nearly con.
nected with the Deficiency bill. The con-
densed sketches Of our reporters present the
substance Of things said and done, and this has
been sufficient to demonstrate the wearisome
propensity that prevails in some quarters, of
getting up discussions on every imaginable sub
ject, rather, it would seem, with the view of
displaying the resources of perverted ingenuity,
than Of promoting the substantial interests of
the country. Those interests require prompt
action; instead of which, however, we have
had prolonged series Of maneuvres, and an
almost endless amount Of talk, with no other
apparent object than that of showing the ex-
tent of mans capacity for mischief.
Without any desire to subvert the received
notion in regard to the unproftableness Of sift-
ing bushels Of chaf for handful of wheat, we
have gone through two or three late numbers Of
the Globe to pick out few grains of argument,
partly TO preserve them for their own sake, and
IN part also TO place in clear IIgnr the IacJous
spirit that has been manifested in the Legisa-
ture
Beginning at random with an item Of $751;
900 to meet deficiency connected with the
quartermaster's accounts, several Of them orr
ginating with the war in Mexico, we find an
opposition member leading off line Of objec-
tors, the tenor of whose objections may be judg
ed of from the reply of Mr.. Evans. That
member remarked
"Gentlcmcn have said that forage not mecca
sary for borses in New Mexico. because the Gov
eminent did not pay for forage to Donipbun's
troops If no money for forage received by
those troops, IL was because they quartered them
selves upon the enemy but what enemy our
troops be quartered upon Must they plum
der the people they are sent to protect Doni-
phan's toope did not do without forage but they
got IL without pay. Now, do gentlemen want 20
throw the army upon the same resources in n
friendly country, which we are bound TO defend
aud protecti If they really honestly wish to di
rninish expenses, let them bring in a bill to-mor-
row, and will venture TO say not one gentleman
upon this side Of the House will object TO II. Bring
in a bill cutting of this forage. Bring in another
cutting of the supplies for the subsistence depart
ment. Bring in another cutting down your army.
Cot down your navy. Reduce your civil corps
Make all these reforms, and will not object 10
The Introduction OF your bills. Let gentlemen
bring in their bills for true reform, IL they wish 10
reduce the appropriations, and not attempt TO re-
duce them While they continue the army and navy
In their full force"
A tOlerable hit, we think, at the political
honesty Of men who seek to obtain popularity
rs economists, while they insist upon the main
ienance Of policy which renders the full APP
indispensable. The onus Of def
ciencies in this class Of cases rests-not with
the Administration, but-with the Congressional
majority by whom the course Of the Admins
tration is marked out
Advertng To another proposal TO cut down
an item Of $50, 74l, 'for pay Of five companies
Of Texas mounted volunteers" Mr.. HowaRD,
one Of the representatives Of that State, OK
planned:
"These troops were called into the service Of the
United States by the order Of the commanding
general Of that division, and they served out their
time, bot the last Congress neglected 10 make
appropriation for their payment; in other words,
because the Department neglected TO estimate the
expenses which to become due for these SER
Rrcss, the appropriation not made"
The inevitable result Of the Opposition sys-
tenn of economy was pointed out by the same
speaker Democrat, be IL remembered, and
therefore a competent witness in the premises:
+" Nov that am up. wish 10 notice one or two
observations which fell from the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. GossAs) on yesterday. He Gays
and urges that We shall cut Gown the supplies OF
the qusrtermaster's department.; and bis economy
would result in THE he is opposed to cutting
down appropriations for pay for subsistence, and
for clothing FOR the army, but he wishes reduce
the qosrtermsster's department. Now, what would
be the result OF thstl You would incur four .fnhs
Of the expense for the support Of the army; but by
Withholding supplies from the qusrtermoster's de.
psrtment, you would render IL impossible for the
general TO make any movement of his troops in
the field, or to make any disposition Of them which
will lie an eectosl protection Of the frontier, be
oause every man knows that the qusrtermsster's
supplies are the life blood Of the movements OF the
army in the field, and that unless they have the
supplies you might ne veil disbond the army. The
gentlernsn's economy would be to keep up the er.