The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-01-23
True Economy-Save the Army and
Navy and Cut Down the Dipi0-
matiSts.

matists.
1t is difficult to always draw the line be-
tween true and false economy. The temp
tation to pass bills without any reason, to
please local interests or pander to local
prejudices, often overcomes cold business
sense. What we want is not economy for
economys sake. or lavish disbursements
for any!body's sake, but such control OF
our finances as any sensible merchant would
apply if the interests were his own and not
the interests of the Commonwealth. This Is
seen in such measures as the River and
Harbor bill, which comes to us every
session, and whore Representatives from out
of the way towns combine and log-roll, and
before they are through pile six or seven
millions upon the nation. One bill of that
kind will cost the country more than a
dozen retrenchment bills will save, and it
is passed to please certain Congressman
and "make them strong" among their
people.
This is false economy, and it is also
false economy to tinker our army and navy
the way Congressman did last session. In
the army political questions enter. This is
q fatal mistake. Some of our Southern
friends think the army too large, be-
cause it's officers took part in the
last war and because We have not
restored the Southern officers to the
rank they abandoned. This is the revival
of sectionalism in its worst form, and if
persevered in will do the South harm, as,
indeed, every sectional question must nee
essarily do harm. We have a good army
in point of character, but it is too small. 1t
is a proud thing to feel that some Of the
most distinguished generals in the world,
men who have won immortal renown, should
still be in their country's service. That
speaks we'll for our future should another
war arise, and SO long as we maintain our
self-respect and our patriotism these
men will be cherished. TO cut down
their salaries or their rank would be
an outrage. Beyond this we need
the army to protect our settlers, look
property and repress such outbreaks Of
lawlessness as in the railroad strikes two
years ago and the riots in New Orleans and
Memphis. We need the army as a nucleus
and nursery in the event of war; We
should have a large and intelligent staff,
good artillery and engineer corps From
these soldiers fit for the highest commands
can be detailed to drill infantry and cavalry.
The last war showed in the South as we'll
as the North, that while we had the ma
terial for good soldiers these soldiers were
nothing without trained generals. The best
generals on both sides-Grant and Lee,
Sherman and Beauregard, Sheridan and
Stonewall Jackson--came from West Point.
To cripple the army which supplied these
men and which in the event Of war would
be expected to supply men to take their
places would be suicide. The same argu-
ment applies to the navy. Even as q
matter OF economy We cannot spend money
to better advantage than in keeping our
ships in good condition and not allowing
them to rot in dockyards. This argument
is so plain that we are almost ashamed to
press it upon the attention of an intelligent
Congress.
True economy will be served by reform
ing our diplomatic system. There the
knife can be driven in wide and deep. Our
diplomatic system is on a false basis. 1t is
a remnant of monarchical ideas, and we
send men abroad half the time to swell the
.use have we for diplomacy in such coun-
tries as Austria or Turkey? 1t is courtesy
to these Powers to send them Ministers. 1t
gives the President desirable appoint
ments. But why should we keep
men on our payrolls to pay atten-
tions to foreign princes? And if these
appointments are so desirable why should
we not send men abroad who are will
ling to hold the places for the honor and
not expect salaries only second to the SAL
airy we pay our President? Why should
our Minister to Berlin receive more money
than the General OF the Army, the Vice
President, the Chief Justice or the members
of the Cabinet? 1t was said of the late
Minister to Berlin, an honored and worthy
citizen, now, unhappily, taken from us,
that the principal reason for his ac-
cepting the Office was that he might
write the life of Goethe. Now. a life
of Goethe, such work especially as
Bayard Taylor would have written, would
have been an addition to our literature.
But why should men be appointed abroad
to write books? Or if we do appoint them
for such purpose why should they not
look upon the Office as an honor and an OPP
portunity and hold it for a small salary?
The appointment of such a man as Bayard
Taylor to Berlin was in itself so commenda-
bic a use of government patronage that we
can refer to it as showing the folly of our
diplomatic system. 1t indicates that our
authorities regard these foreign appoint
ments rs to great degree unnecessary ex-
cept as rewards to men more or less deserv-
ing, or as courtesies to foreign princes. How
much better, if these are honorary posts
that fhay ehould he held nv ueut1emen who