The Cheyenne daily leader. [volume] (Cheyenne, Wyo.) 1870-1884, 1879-03-27
coSsrr1u1loxAlITr OF THE ARMY.

coRsTTTUIIoNALITY OF THE ARMY.
1t is a rather late day to renew the
discussion on the constitutionality Of
a standing army. That question has
so often arisen, to be knocked down,
that we may well wonder at the bat
tered head coming up for another
round. But it is being quietly second
ed now, we suspect, by n of the two
great political organizations of the
country. AT any rate that party is on
record as being in favor of the ques-
tion, and to go a step farther and assist
it into the public arena once more,
would neither stultify nor injure the
party.
The New York Sun is the organ
which steps to the curb and grinds out
the sweet melodies of logic for the &C.
casion. Now, as the man at the ham
die, Charles A. Dana, vas nee assist
ant secretary of war, and is withal a
very learned man, his remarks con-
corning the army have much of the
ponderous about them, and w~eaklings,
like ourselves, seem to manifest abso-
lutte temerity in daring to question their
conclusiveness. However, we shall
''give him a Roland for his Oliver' in
the way Of other authority before we
are done.
Mr.. Dana's double pointed mission
seems to be, to prove that a regular
army is unconstitutional,--that simple
militia were intended; and that the
militia system is the best and. cheapest
at all events.
He holds that the existence of a
standing army sis revolutionary''pe per Sc,
and in clear defiance of the bulwark of
our liberties; that money appropriated
to maintain the army is unlawfully ex-
pended; and he predicts that future
generations will see the matter through
these lenses and act accordingly. Be-
tween his words a be read the admis-
sion that the standing army, having
been organized upon the demand, and
by the consent of the people, it is never
revolutionary-that is, hardly ever.
So the welfare of the people is not
clouded by our $4,000 paid servants
clad in blue.
In section 8. article 1 of the consti-
tuition, wherein the powers of congress
are defined, there is INT clause which
says that the congress shall have power
"To raise and support armies, but no
appropriation Of money to that use
shall be for a longer term than two
years." Further power is given ito
make rules for the government and
regulation Of the land and naval
forces" Also ito provide for calling
out the militia to execute the laws of
the union, suppress insurrection and
repel in%vasions."
There is nothing in the above,
argues Mr.. Dana, to authorize a regu-
lar army, for, says he, would not The
trainers of the constitution have used
the word army in the singular, las they
used "navy," elsewhere) instead of ''ar-
miles," which they did, which word inn
ports succession land temporary exis-
tence? And, if they had intended a
regular army, would they not have also
used the word 'maintain," which word
authorizes a perpetual navyr Mr.. Dana
might have made another point, by
saying that constitutions are to be
strictly construed, and that of the
United States gives congress power to
do that only which is distinctly per-
mitted by it.
However, to make a long argument
short. we should simply say that the
best point against the above is that the
United States have n standing army;
also, that Pope's edict of ''whatever IS,
is right" applies. The fact hat the
standing army has been maintained,
proves that the objection urged against
its constitutionality, have been effec-
tually disposed of, and the power to
maintain the same endorsed and sus-
tanned by the people. We may say,
further, that the discussions and intent
of the trainers of the constitution show
that a standing army was intended;
and such authority, ~ lawyers well
known, is the most valuable for pur-
poses of construction. Well, history
tells us that probably no power of con-
gress mentioned in the constitution
met with so strong opposition before
the people, as this one, to raise and
support armies. 1t was urged with
great force and vehemence, that, being
unlimited, 1t would be. dangerous to
the liberties of the people, and would
finally result in the establishment of a
military despotism. If it had been in
tended, we ask, that only state militia
were to be employed by the United
| States ''to execute the laws of the
union, suppress instructions, and re-
pei invasions," why did the opponents
of the constitution, among the ablest
of whom were members of the conven-
tion which framed it, fear a standing
army and a military ,.despotism? So
excellent constitutional authority as
Townsend says that Hthe powerto raise
and support armies refers to a stand
ing army" And then it occurs to MS
that If only militia-which are always
organized by the s~tates-were to be
called upon by the general government,
congress would scarcely have been given
power Nto raise and sunnort armies ),