Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1878-05-23
tleman from Wisconsin lBraggI and the
fratr1cidal economy of the oentleman frnm

Il
New York Hewitt.
Mr.. Banning stated that under the ne,
! organization every infantry company mus
I have seventy-three men, while at presen
there was not an infantry company whic
mustered Fifty men. The bill increased tn
force of the infantry and cavalry companie
and left the artillery alone, and under it
provisions there would be more muskets OF
| the Texas frontier than there is at present
| The gentleman from Ohio Garfield hat
been alarmed by letter of an English lord
If our Revolutionary fathers had beer
alarmed in that way there never would hav
been government here, and the gentleman
. from Texas Schleicher wanted the arm.
kept strong because there had been trouble
in Texas about the ownership of a certain
salt-well. These were the only argument
made against the bill, which he hoped th'
house would fairly consider end pass.
| This closed the general debate, and tn,
committee considered it under the five min
utes rule.
Mr.. Throckmorton moved to amend by
making the limitation of the army twenty
five thousand, instead of twenty thousand
men.
Mr.. Foster, member of the committee or
appropriations, favored the amendment, anC
INDUCED IN a little sarcasm at the expense o.
his own committee, saying it was perfectly
apparent that If any reform was to creep lntc
| legislation it must come from that commit
tee, because every other committee was ut
| terly worthless in that respect. He confessed
that the problem, as stated by the gentleman
from Texas IScheicher was as Incompetent
sible to him as 1t was to that gentleman. AS
to the suggestion of Mr. Hewitt, that the ex
pense of the army ought to be made proper
tionate to its expense in 1860, he asked
why that gentleman and the committee on
appropriations did not apply that rule to the
house Of representatives, which cost to-day
| t,-,.o = laaTy ont
the cost of printing. He denied the claim OF
the Democratic side of the house as to the
large saving of expenditures.
Mr.. Hewitt insisted that the claim was
fully borne out by the figures, and sad that
as to the arithmetical problem which ap-
| peared so difficult to the gentlemen from
Texas and Ohio [Scnleicher and Fosterl the
American people, who had the advantage of
a common school training, would understand
and appreciate a reduction of the taxes by
nearly four million dollars.
Mr.. Bridges favored the reduction of the
army; the Mexican government ought to be
| notified that it would he held responsible for
injuries perpetrated by its citizens on the cit
liens of the United States, and that the In
| dians ought to be treated kindly and fairly.
Mr.. Dunnell protested against the report
ing of appropriation bills as being less in
amount than for the previous years. Appro-
| priatlon bills ought to be reported, not on the
| ground of being a reduction, but on the
! ground of wants of the public service. As
| to the Democratic claim OF reduction of taxa
ton, he denied that mill of reduction had
been effected; the people had to pay just the
same taxation as In the worst days of Repub-
| hcanIsm.
Mr.. Mills regretted that an army bill should
be made to depend on party politics. His
| constituents asked congress to give them Sc
curity against people who spat upon the
American flag and defed the American au.
| thorities.
Mr.. Durham conceded with the views of
Mr.. Bridges, and deemed an army of fifteen
| thousand men quite sufficient. The largest
| city of his State (Louisville) had an expert
| ence last summer of the dangerous riot, but
| their own citizens had put it down; and if
Pittsburg had acted the same way, there
would have been no necessity for calling on
the government. He did not impute these
riots to the latoring classes or to the bone
and sinew of the country.
| Mr.. Southland favored a reduction of the
| army, and quoted kilograms, etc., to show
| that last year the army had been employed
| in running elections in the southern States
Rather than have the army employed for
| such purpose, 1T would be better not to have
a single soldier in the country; he, therefore,
heartily commended any effort for the pur-
pose of reducing the army and keeping it
within the scope of its legitimate business
and work.
Mr. Wright quoted the report of the secre-
| tary of war In regard to the late labor
troubles, and the pronounced doctrine set
forth In that report as monstrous Was a
State of the Union to be province, to be su-
pervised, protected and governed by a CEN
trail power? God forbid that the day should
ever come when 1t would be necessary for a
regular army to be stationed near large cities
to anticipate revolutions, and for the purpose
of holding the people in terror. The place
| h1 was a
great State he represented, he would say that
| Pennsylvania was able to protect her own
people from invasion at all times and upon
all occasions.
Mr.. Ellsworth did you have them
| there last year?
| to come there; you sent the army against
| our will laughter and it did no good. The
| troops there did more harm than good; they
| only excited the people. More jeers and
| laughter.
| Mr.. Keller opposed the reduction of the
| army, and intimated that one object, covered
| up In the bill, was to allow appointments
to the higher grades to be made from others
than those who had served In the Union
| army.
Mr.. Cannon favored force of twenty-five
| thousand men. He was tired of hearing
| apologies made for the calling on the Fed
| eral authorities to put down the labor riots
not the exclusive owners OF that State, and
when their militia could not be depended
! upon to put down those riots, the people for
a thousand miles west of PENNSYLVANIA,
whose business was 'iuterfered with by those
| riots, sent up an universal Thank Cod
when the call was made upon the President
| for troops.
Mr.. Hanna warned his Democratic friends
| that if, under the pretense of economy, they
robbed the people of Texas and of the Ter
ritories of adequate protection, they would
not only deserve, but would receive the scorn
and contempt of every patriot in the land.
meant by talking of holding Mexico respon-
slble tori depredations?
Mr.. BrIdges-If Mexico did not prevent
these depredations, he would have war de-
clared, and then this country would get anoth-
er slice of Mexico, and would 90 on getting
slice after slice until this country had the
whole of Mexico, as it ought to have.
Mr.. Phillps-Does the gentleman propose
| to get his slice OF Mexico by exposing the
| frontier settlers to murder?
Mr.. Bridges-No, sir.
Mr.. Phillips-Contempla war, do you
| propose to reduce the army?
Mr.. Bridges-I am willing to have a suf-
| fcient force stationed on the Rio Grande
| frontier.
Mr.. Cobb denied that the governor of In.
! diana had, during the late riots, called upon
the President Tor assistance, and no troops
had been sent to Indianapolis to suppress the
| strikes. If they had been collision would
| have occurred at once, and much property
would have been destroyed. He repeated
| that Governor Williams had not applied to
| the President fer assistance.
Mr.. Keifer-What did he apply to him
| for?
Mr.. Cobb-He applied to him for nothing
Mr.. Baker-He telegraphed the secretary
| of war for assistance. 1t seems he did not
have the requisite legal knowledge to make
! a formal requisition.
Mr.. Cobb-TEe governor of Indiana under
stands as well how 10 govern a State as the
| gentleman or any of his friends.
Mr.. Garfield thereupon sent to the clerk s
desk and had read the following telegram:
INDIANAPOLIS, IND, July 20, 1877.
| To the President of the United States:
In view of threatened domestic violence
| growing out of the railroad strikes, l request
that authority be at once given to the COM
mander of the arsenal to render me all tie