The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-05-31
THE ARMY BILL.
How Much Our Cove rnment Pays Its Sol.
dlers aud OHlcers.
Washington Post.l

1t is evident by this time that no bill for
the reduction of the army can get through
this Congress. We use the term reduction
of the army for the sake OF convenience and
because that Is the accepted phrase; but in
this, as In many other cases, the accepted
nomenclature by no means conveys an adj
equate or accurate idea Of the matter under
consideration. We have never taken any
part in such cutlery as that of reducing the
army to 10000 men, or to $1,000 men: be-
cause these expressions are the merest gen.
eralities, calculated to mislead the public
mind, or, at least totally irrelevant and I'M
instructive; but we have steadily maintained
the necessity for reorganization. AS at pres
ent constituted, our army represents a fig ht-
ing force Of say $4,000 men of all ranks. 1t
Is established upon an obsolete system, and
Is maintained at q cost which ought to cover
the expense OF about two and a half times It's
real force; that is to say, making all due
allowance for the exceptional exigencieS OF
our frontier service the sum yearly voted by
Congress for the maintenance of our mill
tary establishment ought to suffice for the
pay subsistence and accOutrement of at
least 10000 men, and would suffice tor that
purpose II the force We're organized on an
equitable basis of proportion between the
line, field and staff The Banning bill, as
finally got into shape, was a step In the di-
rection of consolidating, wedding out and
pruning down the establishment to some
thing like proper relative ratio 1t failed
how."er, In some particulars, notably in that
OF the medical staff and in the pay depart
ment, both of which, though overloaded until
they are as tOp-heavy as a ship would be
standing on her mast-heads bottom-side up
We're practically left undisturbed by its pro-
visions. 1t should be understood that the
great cost OF our army Is not at all due to the
excessive expense OF our fighting forces In
garrison or in the field, but to the enormous
extravaganza of our arrangements for the
support of useless military aristocracy of
staff officers without duty, and of field Off
GERS without commands. Our force, in round
numbers, embraces one commissioned officer
to every eight men This is the secret of our
extravaganza. This Is the reason why
our army is relatively three times more
costly in proportion than the British
army, which, in turn, is nearly three
times more expensive in the ratio of its
numbers than any other civilized military es-
tablishment. 1t is the common custom of
our sleek, fat, well-paid and idle officers to
assert that this discrepancy is due to the fact
mat our soldiers are so much better paid
than the English troops are! But this Is not
true. The pay of our private soldiers is $l3
month, with $42 q year for clothing, and
rations which could be COMMITTED at thirty
cents day, or 50 per mont. This brings the
gross necessary cost of the individual soldier
up to about 1926 year. making fair allow
ance for the value Of the ordnance material
III his possession. The pay OF the British
soldier, since the army reform OF ls7o1,
month net, to which must be added
allowances of clothing, rations, etc, sufficient
to bring the entire cost Of the individual pri-
waite up to $40 ear. Now, assuming that
we have 230Oo enlisted men, the cost of main
tanning them ought to be about S1,500,000,
leaving about 100000 as the cost of main
tanning over 20e0 and odd commissioned Off
GERS! That is to say, for all practical pur-
poses, it costs the country S9000,0o0 year to
ofllcer body OF troops whose cost is 81 ,500,-
900. But the British army has. Of cavalry
Infantry. artillery and the various service and