The interior journal. [volume] (Stanford, Ky.) 1872-1881, 1877-11-30


in opinion on the army question, pro.
pounds a number of shrewd conun-
drums, such as, how many men does
Il take to make watch? how many
to run all the railroad trains? how
many to sweep the Capitol at Wash
ingtoni how large an army do we re-
quire, &c, and then adds this wise
and whitening observation
"when we want to know these things we
70 to those who have informed themselves
on the subject, except that when we come to
the enquiry about the army, we say that
the President, the Secretary Of War, and
the General Of the Army, who are required
to explore the whole field, know nothing
about Il, and the people Of the frontier
do not know what they need that the forti e
fcations on which we have expended mil
lions ought to take care Of themselves, and
that in the theory Of our system there are
no riots, and the constitutional clause
which gives State a right to aid from the
General Government to suppress domestic
violence, means nothing"
The obvious Interpretation Of this
ironical utterance, so far as il relates
to the strength Of the army, is that
the only true and reliable sources Of
information as to how great an army
we need, are the President, Secretary
of War and the General of the Army
and the people on the frontier-that
nobody else is competent to give in
formation on the subject or entitled
even to an opinion about it. Well,
the President and Secretary, so far
as we know, have not been heard from
on the subject, but the General of the
Army and the frontier people have, and
what do they say? General Sherman
says we need $4,000 men, while the
people on the border, those whose per-
sonal safety is at stake, through
their representatives in Congress, ex-
press themselves as content with the
army at its present strength, merely
protesting against its reduction and
protesting still more against its une-
quail distribution. The members from
Texas, whose constituents are in more
imminent danger than any other citi-
zens of the Union, explicitly say they
do not desire an increase Of the army
at all, that it is large enough as it is,
but only ask that a sufficient force
shall be assigned to their frontier to
afford them protection against the Dor
der outlaws. Now who, in the COu-
rier-Journops judgment, is right about
this matter-General Sherman or the
people Of the frontier? If we are to
Judge from the expressions of that pa
per heretofore made We must set il
down as, if not fully endorsing the
views of the General, prefering them
decidedly to those of the frontiersmen.
In its article pu lished on the 10th
inst, after expressing the opinion that
Congress should do something towards
preventing the recurrence of mob vio-
lence, it makes this declaration: 1.-THE
argument that favors such an increase
of force in the National Government
finds its force in the circumstance that
regular troops are more quickly avail
able" By this and similar utterances
in the course IF this discussion the CD.
is fully committed, as we have here
tofore shown, to the policy OF increas'
ing the regular army and increasing
it especially for police purposes. Sc
that paper and General Sherman har'
monize most beautifully upon thi'
point, but whetherthey are in perfect
accord as to the extent of the proposed
augmentation of military power, We
are not advised, though we have ur
gently called upon the editor for light
on that subject
The C.-J's. sarcasm about the fOrti-
fcations taking care of themselves is
perfectly gratuitous. Nobody ever
suggested or intimated that they should
not be protected. Those who oppose
the enlargement ofthe army are just
as far from wishing to leave the gov
eminent property unprotected as they
are from thinking it will require 3d.
900 men to afford it the needed pro
lection.
As to the editors severe remark i'm.
plying that those who take issue with
him entertain the idea that "in the
theory of our system there are no riots,
il may be said that, while no one has
taken that position, yet it is less unre'
sonable, less at war with the spirit of
our institutions, less at war with out
ideas of true liberty than his idea of a
standing army for police purposes.
We do not hesitate to say that Gin the
theory of our system" there is no stan
ding army for police purposes. Will
the C.-J dispute that!
With regard to the proper construc'
ton of the Constitutional provision for
the protection of States against dones-
tic violence our views have been sufii'
GENTLY set forth in previous articles,
and we have no fears that they will not