Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-04-02
ARss1E RETEENGHMENT--L0GAs
! AMI SHERMAN

be purpose of defeating Logan's army re-
renchment bill, and he makes some vigor-
nus tlrusts at Gen. Logan. He is evil
lently fighting against reduction of his
,wn salary. We have, as the ST. Louis
justly says, more officers IN
Ter pay than can be probably employed;
more On the staff than European military
ten tipes as large as ours
employ, and in some cases the salaries re-
ceiVed are out of all proportion to those
attached to positions in the civil service of
equal or greater importance. When
cabinet minister is paid only $4,000 per
annunl and Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States only $40, GOO,
there Is no ptopriety in paying a Major
General or General third, or one-haH
more, unless it is thought best to aggran-
die the military at the expense of the
civil department. We are aware that
many, perhaps all, of these officers
achieved distinction in the late war, and
were instrumental in bringing the war to
suceessfulconclusion. The country has
not forgotten nor omitted to reward them
for their services, but We fail to see why
the pecuniay part of that reward shall be
exempt from the necessary reductions
due to strict and impartial economy.
This is republic, and not monarchy,
and the same reasons which prevent US
from comforting upon distinguished men
titles of nobility, crosses, stars and gar
tiers are sufficient arguments why we
should not endow them with fortunes.
1t is no more disgrace to the nation that a
Major General, who commanded more
men than the Duke of Wellington had in
Spain, should receive less pay than the
Dukes private secretary, than it is that
President Grant receives $25, 900 yearly,
while Queen Victoria gets S5,000,oOO
England elevated Marlborough and Vel
lington to dukedoms, and gave to the one
Blenheim, and to the other Strathfield-
saye; but it is no reproach to us, and no
neglect to them, when the United States
refuses to confer similar rank and emolu-
ments upon Sherman, Meade, Sheridan
and Hancock. RetIxnchment, economy,
lighter taxes, reform, are things in which
the people of this country will not be
banked; and, while there might be more
gracious improvements than reduction
of army pay, Gen. Sherman and the army
must stand the steel. These efforts to
prevent any retrenchment in this direc-
ton foil themselves, and it is to be re-
GREETED, though not at all surprising, that
the natural ardor of the military mind
should not perceive the benefit of making
some concession. Not long since twenty
regiments were disbanded and turned out
upon the world. Nobody then thought
that those troops had earned a right to a
continued maintenance in the service
simply because they had been in the SER
vice; but no sooner is the effort made to
prune down the overgrown staff of Of
fcers who have no command than we
hear this claim advanced. The cry of
the POOR old war-worn soldier, battered
and banged and SO on, has, of course, its
force: but we are in no case now for SEN
timent The voice which. comes up for
retrenchment-army retrenchment as
much as any other-comes from people
divers millions of whom have been
soldiers themselves, and it is q tender
point to insist that there is an illiberality
to the soldier in that cry. -.-..
A few days ago Gen. Logan made a
long personal explanation in the House of
in reply to Gen. Sher-
mans letter. Logan asserts that when the
bill was fully matured, and previous to its
introduction to the House, he called on
Sherman, in company with Secretary Bel
KNAPP, laid the bill before him, and re-
questei him to point out his objections to
it. Sherman read it through, and said it
met his approval, with the exception of
the section providing for mastering out
number of generals. Now Gen. Sherman
objects to the whole bill, but he does not
explain the reason for his sudden CONVEX
sion. Logan spoke for more than an hour
in severe terms of Sherman, characteriz-
ing his letter as an impudent piece of die
tetion to prevent honest legislation. The
House gave Logan close attention, and
when he concluded there was an Outburst
Of applause on the part of members of
.he House, in which the gallaries were
quick 10 join. The Washington CORES
pondent of the Baltimore Gazette writes,
March 90:
"Gen. Logan is preparing, and will
shortly deliver, as an appendix to what he
said to-day in his great speech, a very Sc
we're rebuke to the General of the Ar
mics of the United States" 1t is said in
intelligent quarters that he will not stop
at merely replying to the statements and
tone Of the letter of Gen. Sherman to
Senator Wilson, but will carry his bellig-
erent operations into the enemy's territory.
| learn from trustworthy source that he
will even question the courage of the
General, and show that he was never
within rifle-shot of the opposing forces
during the 'fnfernal" rebellion. l see,
therefore, a dim glimmer Of personal
which must create an excitement
Of as worldwide repute as the ''great
luel" between don Enrique de Bour-
BON and the Duke de MOntpensier, for
his ''great country must not be behind
hand in anything. This disclosure
nay be looked upon, as it is intended, as
/ warning in time to the great head of
he national detectives here, and, may
zap, draw his attention from less worthy
md glorious objects. However else this
natter may turn out it will doubtless
lraw broad line between the "vOluu-
GERS" in the late war and the ''Simon-
,uresn Of West Point origin. The intel
igent reader has long since concluded
hat the recent fizzle about cadetships had
is inception in a desire to belittle what
re called Irregular" officers of the army,
" showing the process by which they
we're enabled to get military education
It the nations expense"
THOSE OUTRAGES.
In reply to the grave charges which are
made against the people of Tennessee, we
make the following extract from a private |