The daily gazette., 1878-05-29
Hayes, the Troops, and the
People.

kept up with exp ess reference to crush
ing out in blood the " uprisings of the
people for the redress of grievances,
real or rfdnried,' isl doctrine launched
on the country by the Admin. .tratioD of
Rutherford b. Hayes.
The tfildisl document in which this |
| ductrine ID set out is the report of &. W. |
McCrary, Hayes's War Secretary, dated |
Nov. 10, 1877. This repor,, noting that |
4" it is assumed that our present force is
sufficient for the protection os our bord |
| ers and Of our frontier settlements"
| proposes ID ''waive b, re discussion of
that question:" and TO make an issue on
increasing the army with view to
suppressiug local dlstul binces. Mr. NC
Crary says:
"Ihe presence of a strong garrison in
any part Of the country will often pre-
vent an uprising which, in its absence,
might OCCUR. fhe great value of a
| strong Federal force stationed in the
vicinity Of our great cities would be
seen in the prevention of IN lbs and vio-
lence, probably far more ian in their sup
preston. The army is 10 the United
States what well-disciplined and lraiii-
ed police force is to city, and the one
is quite as necessary as the other. Those
who oppose any incredte in the army do
so upon the theory that the local militia
is sufficient for all the purposes of pres
serving lhe peace aud suppressing local
uprising.
Our fathers who framed the Constitu-
tion, and who were not without expert
ne pen ,his o n d ted he W 81, m
OF relying upon The militia, and So pro-
vided fot the employment of the Federal
troops for this purpose. If this seemed
necessary to them IN the early period of
our history, when our population was
largely rural, and the spectacle seldom
or never witnessed of large masses of
men idle, suffering, and desperate, how
much more necessary is the same thing
now ? As our country increases in pc
pulation and wealth, and as great cities
become numerous, it must be clearly
seen that there may be great danger Of
uprisings of large masses of people for
e red ess Of gr eyancts, IT al fancied ;
and 1t is a vel known fact that such up
risings enlist in greater or less degree
the syippathies OF the communities in
which they occur. This fact alone reu-
ders the local militia unrel liable In such
an emergency"
Here, then, Hayes's war Secretary
struck the keynote for the debate when
has gone on In the House during III,
past week. Expressly waving the dis
cussioh as TO whether he had not enough
/ troops TOR Indian, Mexican, and routine
garrison needs, he asked for an imperial
army as a substitute for local militia
requesting Congress to give Hayes plen
AIRY authority to nearly double the arm!
!. by stroke of his pen, adding: "W
may safely assume that such discretion
would be exercised with becoming
moderation and prudence, and the graut
aggregate would never, in any probdbl
emergency arising in the recess of Con
). gress, xceed 10000 men !'
/ During the past week we have hear
~ these monstrous propositions reiterate
in the House. Ninety years ago MI
Madison said: "a standing army is on
of the greatest mischiefs-a dangerous
at the same time it may be a necessar
provision; on the smallest scale it has II
incohveniences, on an extended scale II
. consequences may be fatal" But, wise
in his day, Mr.. Anson e. McCook tel
Congress: "The suggestion that ou
army is a standing menace to our libel
ties is in my opinion childish one;' an
: Mr.. Humphrey of Wisconsin argues tha
, "we need never apprehend that an arm
of $4,000 or 10000 is dangerous to our
berties." Mr.. Madison said: "lf insu
rections should arise, the people ougl
unquestionably TO be employed to SUI
press them, rather than astanding army
=, but Mr. Caldwell of Tennessee, thong
lul lu voting for army reduction, goes out {
u his way to defend the conduct of I'll
". Governors of West Virginia, Marylant
tn and Pennsylvania, last year, in callln
Il. for the standing, army to suppress loc
n riots; and De Golyer Garfield, review in
the same transactions, says: 81 am Il
ed the reign of law in this republic, and fl
an army large enough to make it sure
Such are the echoes to-day in Congre
of the monstrous utterances of Hayes
[. War Secretary six months ago. III
theory of a free republic is that COVER
mt int must rest on the just consent of Il
F., governed; the proposal of Hayes is
Y, have it rest on "a strong Federal for
stationed in the vicinity of our gre
., cities" at all times, with a view to "pr
VENT an uprising.
'S 'rs In proposing this scheme, Hayes
,c' War Secretary has attributedlto the four
DO ers of the constitution sentiments e
actly opposite to those which they II
tered. "Our fathers who framed the GO
stitution," he says, "doubted the wisdo
of relying upon the militia y but, as NJ
Kimmel has reminded Congress, the vel
Constitutions of New Hampshire, We
mont, Massachusetts, Pennsylvani
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and Nor
Carolina expressly declared, in so maj
words, that ''standing armies in time
av peace are dangerous to liberty" Was
Q ington declared that "the honor, safe
er er- and well-being of of our country esse
'a- tally depend" on a good mlili
r il organization. John Adams called Il
di- militia 'the natural and safe defence
the country" Jefferson and Frank
Idh held similar opinions. Even Gen. Kno
Washington's War Secretary, pronoun
ed an energetic militia "the capital
vr ourity of free republic; and not stan
Ell ing army, forming standing army for
ing distinct class" Yet Hayes's W
Secretary says that "our fathers doubt
:. the wisdom of relying upon the militl
IL, in civil disturbances, "and so employ
Federal troops for the purpose" III
did not so employ Federal troops. Th'
small standing army-and the army
ee ganized under the act of 1870 was on
l,273 strong-was expressly raised 81
protecting the frontiers from the dep
hations of hostile Indians" When
'oo PENNSYLVANIA whiskey war broke o