The Evening critic., 1882-12-26

THE amendment to the Army bill pro.
viding for the abolishment of the Pay Corps,
or its transfer to the Quartermaster's De-
partment, may or may not prove practical
step toward retrenchment in our military
establishment. That the Pay Corps should
be topheavy is not to be wondered at. Top.
heaviness is the normal condition of our
Regular military force in time Of peace,
and so it must always be until radical
change is made in our system. General
Tom Browne, in his speech favoring the
amendment, made the point that as things
stood the services Of fifty.four paymasters
were required to pay less than 10000 troops.
This proposition would provide a pay
master for every 400 men. But
after all this is no greater disproportion
than exists generally throughout the SER
vice. For example, we have about 5000
officers of all ranks to command our 10000
enlisted men, or one to seven, 1t is easy
to mako out a case Of great absurdity by
comparing this establishment with those of
European nations In the British army
the proportion is about one officer to thirty
six men. In the Continental armies the
ratio ranges from one officer to forty-four
men in the French army to one officer to
fifty.six men in the Russian service, which
are tho extremes. But no such comparison
can Justly be made. As we said before,
the existing state Of things must continue
until our system is radically altered, and,
for our part, we are not prepared to admit
that change would holp matters. We
Ia military Swell "a mn nj
defense. That is universally conceded.
The question remaining is whether we
shall maintain it on the present basis or
try some other experiment As it stands,
our Army is simply a cadre Of executive
and administrative officers, ready to be filed
up with soldiers by the volunteer method
at any time and to any extent that emer-
gency may require. This, it must be re-
membered, is the exact antithesis of the
European systems, in which tho establish
ment of rank and file in greater or less
force Is the main consideration. Our theory
is that every able. bodied American is ready
to become good soldier at a moments
warning; whereas the officer is the product
UI long and careful training and education
is that e"n ~" ..-s.sIYt .as2t can be made a good
soldi~- only by training, while Che
onicer is born to his station.
The European theory would be manifestly
impracticable here. Our theory would be
equally impracticable there. The system
founded upon our theory enabled us to aug
ment our army from 10000 men in March
1861, to 100000 men in March, 1862, and tt
over million by March, 1864. No such
achievement was ever seen before. Until
some better system can bo devised, we shal
be found defending our existing establish
ment. 1t is better to pay
large surplus Of officers whose services
may. be needed at any time, but who's,
qualifications eould not be improyised, thar
to be caught in an hour of need with
mob Of civilian soldiers on hand, but ne
military intelligence available to make ar
effective army OF them. We may not neet
all our officers at this moment. But as tn,
Texan said OF his revolver, we need then
80 like hi when we do need them that i
pays to carry them with us all the time.