Year: 1875




If the democrats in Congress carry out
their purpose to reduce the army from 25, 900
to $1,000, they will perpetrate political
blunder for which the saving in expense will
not be a compensation. There is no first
class Power in the world which maintains 80
small an army as ours. France with popu-
lation of SO, 900, 900, has a standing army of
303, 900 men Great Britain, with popula-
ton of 1900, 900, has an army Of 225, 900
Germany, with q population of 4l,0OO,OOO
has a peace establishment of 274, 900.
Even our weak neighbor, Mexico, with
population Of only 1900, 900, maintains an
army nearly as large as ours is at present,
the Mexican army consisting of p, 3S7 men.
Our military burden in time of peace is alto
gether smaller than that of any other nation
in proportion to our territory, population
and resources. If there be any reason why
we should maintain an army at all it ought
to be at least as large as it is at present.


In 1855, twenty years ago, under dem
ocratic administration, with Jefferson Davis
as Secretary of War, the army consisted of
II, 729 men, say in round numbers $4,000.
Our population at the preceding GEN.
sus was 23,000,O00. Our population in
1870 was about 40, 900; and if our
army bore the same proportion to the
population at present that it did in 1856
it would amount to about twenty-three
thousand, or only two thousand short of the
actual number. But we have greater pro-
portionate use for troops than we had twenty
years ago. At that time our settlements had
not penetrated through the whole region be-
tween the Mississippi Valley and the Pacific
coast Our new settlements and mining
establishments throughout the vast region
on the slopes Of the Rocky Mountains re-
quire military protection against the incur
sions Of the Indians and create a necessity
for corresponding army. Twenty years
ago the Mexican border was not in state of
chronic disturbance as it is at present,
nor was there the same necessity for
taking precautions against a conflict of
races in the Southern States Moreover,
we had not then purchased Alaska, which
requires constant military superintendent.
We quite agree with General Sherman, in
his recent speech at the New England din
ner that it would be unwise to reduce the
army below it's present number. Even when
the troops are not called into active service,
the Indians are kept in awe, and the South is
perhaps kept tranquil by the knowledge that
there is force that could be promptly used
in an emergency. In matters Of this kind
the proverb holds good that an ounce of pre-
vention is worth a pound of cure, as was
signally demonstrated by our military help
lessness at the outbreak of the civil war.
the rebellion might have been nipped in the
bud, and the country have been saved
stupendous sacrifices of blood and treasure.


1t would be political mistake to cut down
the army to the extent proposed, because
the army is popular and is administered with
more honesty than any other branch of the
public service. A reduction Of the rank and
file would naturally be accompanied with
corresponding reduction of the officers; and
if the democratic hostility TO General Sheri-
dan and those who share his political views
should cause their dismissal, there would be
a popular commotion. which would revive
and enlist on the republican side the senti-
ments which made that party SO strong and
irresistible during and subsequent to the
war. If the democrats in Congress are pru-
dent they will curtail expenses in those
branches of the public service which are cor
rupt before meddling with the army and its
popular officers.