The Tiffin tribune. (Tiffin, Ohio) 1868-1887, 1879-02-13
ARMY REDUCTION DEFEATED
THE DEBATE ELICITING SHARP
TILK on ALL SIDES OF
THE HOUSE.

o THE DEBATE ELitlIlSG SHARi
TILK on ALL SIDES OF
THE HOUSE.
Democrats Divided aS tG What The
Number Of Troops Shall he.
( WA=iIINGTGN. Feb. 4.-Thc House
/ being IN Committee of the Whole um
tine Army Appropriation Bill, NJ
| Durham dem kyy submitted Su
amendment reducing the army 10 20
UJ1 enlisted men. For his part he
would like to SEE the army rcducei -
l9.UyJ men, but fearing he I'M ght lie IN
error. had proposed 2O,OOO ds evidently
sufficient for the needs Of the country.
/ He was opposed 10 the doctrine that
! because there was little bread riot in
I Baltimore Or elsewhere, the Federal
army must bc called in 20 suppress it.
/ Thai duty dcyOlyed upon the state
militia.
Mr. WhitthOrne dem, Tenn moved
/ to reduce the number To $500 and AZ
"Ied in favor of a better organization
1 Of the militia. which was the sure re-
/ lance Of a popular government Tie
people should be taught that the cOuH-
/ try relied upon them for protection.
Mr.. Wait rep, Comm said il was
! idle to talk abOut relying on the
Inilitia. In tle western States there
WIS no Well-Org;miZed militia. II
would be nuci better TO increase the
army tn :;n.GGa.
Mr.. Con@r Rep, Mich) was sur
/ prised tlId, his friend from Tennessee
(Mr. NhijliOTHc) had neglected 10
mention the navy as one of the bull
yarks of the nation.
Mr. WhitIhOrne replied that since he
had read the rcmaks Of the Senator
from Maine CIR. Blaine). if lac had had
no ether prior conviction on the sub
jet. hc would have been sure that
there WAS no navy to talk about. Ii
might be that hc had that opinion
now, but he would say TO his friend
from Michigan (Alr. COngcT) that in
using tle general term militia, he had
used ii Us referring to the body Of the
people from whom were recruited the
forced 0H land and sea. II was to the
people le looked for defence, rather
than to any organized force. He be
licyed that all governments should de
pend upon the support and affection
and patriotism of the citizens; that
support would give nerve and strength
10 its army whenever emergency called
for IL and required il. lie had no hos
tile feeling toward the army, but he
had a love for the popular institutions
of the country. and relying on them he
believed for one that the people of the
United States would in future march
forward in such progress us had never
been equalicd in the past history of
the world. Believing that the people
mi9ht.be trusted he would provide for
no agency or force whatever for the
support of the Government beyond
what WAS necessary 10 protect its
property and defend it against foreign
enemies.
Mr. TOwnshend Dem., Ill.) favored
the amendment. St2nding armies were
dangerous to liberty. On the LIST of
December, 1851, France was a repub-
lie, with President and a National
Assembly. On the morning of the 2d
of December the people of France
awakened and found themselves living
under a dcSpOtism. That had hap
pened because there We're SA.OOO men
in Paris who had been taught to be-
lieye that passive obedience TO the or
ders of tho commander was their
duty.
Mr.. ThrOckmOriOn Oem., Texas OPP
posed the amendment. People of his
and the bordering States had been suf-
fering, and were still suffering. be-
cause of this miserable economy, |
which had cost his people millions of
money and a sacrifice Of thousands of |
lives.
Mr.. Hanna rep, Ind) said it looked |
as though the little army would have |
no peace until there was another war. |
To say that an army of 2j,O00 men was !
Il standing menace to the liberties of |
the people was not worthy of the con-
sideratiOn of any intelligent man. 1t |
was an insult to everybody in the land. |
Mr.. Hewitt (Dem, \. y said that |
in previous Congress- the Gqn9miitttffe :. i ;tf
for the maintenance of an |
army of 20,OOO men. Those bills had |
passed the House and gone to the |
Senate. The number had been inva- |
riably rt jectcd at the other end of the |
Capitol and the House had ALWAYS |
reccded. because it did not want to let |
the bills fail. This year the Commit |
tee had reported Il bill providing for |
2J,OOO men, because it would have been |
idle to have done otherwise. The |
change had been made at the other |
end of the Capitol blythe votes Of Re |
publicans and Democrats alike, and |
therefore the Committee had con-
cluded no longer To raise the question. |
Mr.. Garfield rep, Ohio sent to the |
Clerks desk and had read letter of |
e NN.,-I.fnufnVf in, L.,
stated that a standing army was not to |
be dreaded, but that the want of one /
might he ruinOus.
defeated.
Mr.. Cox (Dem., New York; moved to
amend by fixing the force at 1900
men. Ills friend from New York |
lMr. HEWITT had given as the reason
why the bill provided for 2j,O0l men
that the Senate would not agree to
what the House demanded. He (MT.
Cox did not lay much emphasis on
that sort of reasoning. The House
WAS the popular branch, and should be
first consulted and always consulted
upon the cOnSummatiOn of Legislation
of this kind. lie SAW no reason why
this army of 25,OO0 should he kept up.
He feared that there MRS some other
object beneath this appropriation. He
knew that the gentlemen Of the major
ity OF the Committee on ApPrUpri-
itiOns did not intend it, but the eXpe-
ricmcG which the country had had con-
nected with the disruption of States.
and the breaking down of popular and
electoral liberties, had given il q warn
ing against any undue increase of the
army. lie believed that but for tire
threat of General Grant. Commander
in-Chicf of the army (WhOse special |
love of military power had aggrlnd-
iZed 10y his travels in EuT0pe), and but
for the fact that there wils AN army of
z001J in 1877, the popular will of the
country would not have been stricken
down 10y the inaguratiOn of the pres
cnt occupant of the White House.
With a faith growing out of the jeal-
OuSy Of military power and physical |
force, he had always voted and would
always vote for the reduction OF the
army.
Mr Atkins dem, Tenn) said the
House had on three different occasions
voted fOE2J,OD0 as the regular force of
the standing army. That had been
the expression of the IIOuSe, and the
Committee on Appropriations, know
ing that in order to get this llll
at all the number would have
TO be fixed at 2j.OO0, had fixed that
in the bill. The Committee
on Appropriations desired to De prac-
teal in this matter 1t did not want
10 make cheap reputation and capital
before the country 10y reducing the ar
my, knowing that it could not force
the reduction through the House. 1t
did not desire any such reputation.
Mr.. Finley dem. Ohio)--Did the
Committee think they were right
when they advocated 5000 men last
year?
Mr. Atkins-YeS.
Mr.. Finley-ATe they wrong now?
Mr.. Atkins-NO, sir. for the very
reason l have given.
Mr. Mills Diem, Texas said that
there seemed to he Il fear that Il stand
ing army would destroy the liberties
Of the people One of the fathers of
House (Mr. Cox reminded the
House that standing army
had overturned the liberties
nj the people on one occasion.
That WAS When there had been about
! 500 men in the District of Columbia.
in 1871. Eighteen men would have
effected the same purpose. lie tMr.
Cox had said that it had been Occa-
stoned by threat of Gen. Grant. If
that was so, he (Mr. Mills thought