New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1866-03-15
THE ARMY BILL.


tablishment of the United States was yesterday
reported to the Senate, discussed, and, after the
adoption Of numerous amendments, passed by
a vote oftwenty seven TO five, eighteen Senators
not voting or being absent. According TO this
BILL the army Of the United States is to consist
in times Of peace of five regiments of artillery,
twelve regiments of cavalry, and fifty regi-
ments of infantry. Eight of the infantry regi-
ments. and, in accordance with an amendment
proposed by Mr.. Wade, two Of the cavalry reg
iments, are to be composed of colored men.
An infantry regiment has, beside the officers,
500 privates, which number may be increased
at the discretion of the President to 900. Our
"peace establishment, therefore, would num-
Der from 81, 900 TO about 20, 900 men.
The vote by which this h.ll was passed is less
of party character than one might have ex-
pected from the clause relative TO the negro
regiments. Democracy, of course, made an eff
fort to ostracise the colored defenders Of the
country; but an amendment offered to that
end by Mr.. McDougal was summarily
voted down, the Senate refusing to order
The yeas and nays. On the whole Of the
bill being put to vote, Messrs. Buckalew,
Guthrie, johnson, Nesmith and Stockton voted
for it, notwithstanding the negro clause. The
small minority Of five is made up of three
Republicans Grimes, Harris, Kirkwood) and
two Democrats Davis and Riddle) If the
absent and non-voting members had all voted
with the minority, the majority for the bill
would have been only four.
The first impression which the reading of this
bill must make upon every citizen Of the United
States is that Of its radical antagonism to one of
the most distinctive features Of the policy
of the United States. From tho close
Of the War Of Independence until the outbreak
of the Rebellion, it has been not only the
law, but it has been the boast Of the United
States alone, of the great civilized nations Of the
world, that they were without a standing army.
In comparing theirs with foreign institutions,
they pointed, with proud consciousness of the
superiority Of our institutions, to the fact that
among US obedience to the laws was enforcednot
by military orders, but by the universal respect
of the law and, if necessary, by the civil courts
And not only was this our boast, but nearly all
the leaders of the progressive party in Europe
found that we were right and the reduction Of
the standing army and its gradual supplanta-
ton by the militia has been inscribed on the
banner of the progressive party in nearly every
European country.
Who would ever have thought Of changing u
feature so fundamental in our institutions but
for the late Rebellion How many members
would have been found before 1861 either in
the Senate or in the House Of Representatives,
to depart from distinctive American policy
in order to advance one step toward habit
of monarchical Europe, which is defended by
the arstocrats and reactioniss, while the friends
of progress were and are DESTROYS tao ssimilate
it to the very institution which the Senate yes
terday voted to throw overheard
And where, we would ask, is the reason for
change so radical, and, therefore, SO ominous
We have just passed through military ordeal,
much more severe than q foreign power can
ever possibly bring upon US; and did not the
citizen soldiers nobly stand the ordeal and
wiring unbounded admiration from the Old
World, including even those who, thus far,
had only believed in standing armiesi Can, in
view Of the history of the past four years. any
one doubt the ability of the people of the United
States to repel triumphantly foreign invader
of our soil
Nor can we find any more reason for such
bill in the condition of our own country. An
army of $4,000 men instead of $4,000 would not
hays nSsYsutsa tho Rebellion IN ls6i, nor will