this District of Columbia to take care of the District only, with full staffs. The President, the Commander-in-Chief, is one, the General of the Army another, the Secretary of War still another, the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau is another, General Hancock, commander of the military division, is another, General Emory, the commander of the department of Washington, is another, General Wal lace, the commander of the garrison of Washington, is another; there are, therefore, seven general headquarters' to take care of this District in time of peace, and, I believe, from twelve to fifteen generals on duty here in various ways. A friend suggests nineteen. I always underrate in my statements. Now, sir, that being so, I desire that we shall come down somewhere near a peace establishment, and I know of no man better situated to designate who shall hold these commissions of major generals than the General of the Army. I propose to follow up this amendment by an amendment providing that, instead of ten brigadier generals, there shall be only six, to be selected in the same way. This bill provides for only twenty-five thousand soldiers, and three major generals and a lieutenant general are amply sufficient to take charge of twenty-five thousand men; and those are twice as many general officers as are employed with a like number of troops in the best European armies. A friend near me says that he would give them six months. Why? Did you give any six months to the volunteer generals after they were no longer wanted? When you get through with them they go out at once. The most of them knew, too, where to go. We of the volunteer service asked no favors. I am willing to give those officers sixty days after this act shall pass. They have all been educated, with one exception, at the expense of the Government. They were given a first-rate education at the expense of their country. They are all wanted as engineers of railroads and on other public works. They can all be employed and be of some use, which they are not now, although that is not their fault. I hope, therefore, my amendment will be adopted. [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. GARFIELD. I hope the House will not adopt the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BUTLER.] Mr. MULLINS. I do hope they will. Mr. GARFIELD. In the first place, it is a very ungracious task which the Committee on Military Affairs have felt it their duty to per form, to cut down so large a number of persons in official positions as this bill proposes; and particularly in the case of persons who have performed so distinguished services as have been performed by the officers embraced in this section. There are five major generals now in the Army: Halleck, Meade, Sheridan, George H. Thomas, and Hancock. Now, to require the General of the Army to select two of them to be stricken from the rolls, to let the burden, and especially what odium there might be in that selection rest upon the General of the Army, I think would not be treating him fairly, nor would it be treating fairly the officers who now occupy these positions. Without undertaking to debate this matter further, I ask for a vote on the amendment. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I modify my amendment so that it shall read on the 1st day of January next," instead of "sixty days after the passage of this act." The question was on the amendment, as modified. Mr. LOGAN. I move to amend the amendment by striking out the last word for the purpose of saying a word in reply to what has been said by the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, [Mr. GARFIELD.] I do not look upon this as being so great a hardship as some men seem to consider it. A great many men might have considered it a hardship, after they had served as generals in the Army for four years, and lost their business at home, to be mustered out at a day's notice. But I presume none of them did so consider it. If we intend to reduce the Army, if that is our intention in good faith-and I hope that we do intend it-it is not right for us to commence by cutting off the private soldiers, and leaving the great army of generals drawing their pay of $3,000, $5,000, or $6,000 a year each, with staffs around them drawing as much more. It is wrong to have in service officers for whom we have no use. This bill proposes to reduce the Army to twenty-five thousand men. Now, the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs [Mr. GARFIELD] was himself at one time a general in the Army; and I should be glad if he would tell me by what rule of the Army it will require a general, a lieutenantgeneral, four major generals, ten brigadier generals, and twelve staffs to command twenty-five thousand troops. Both he and I in our military experience, have known that number of men to be commanded by a far less number of generals without any major generals whatever except at the head. There is no necessity in time of peace for such a body of officers as this bill proposes. These officers ought not to consider it a hardship that their services are dispensed with. No man ought to consider it a hardship that, when the country does not require his services, it shall say so. I know that when my country required my services no longer I was informed of the fact, and that was enough for me. It ought to be enough for everybody in such a position. It was enough for many men who are now on this floor. I do not know what is the present number of our Army; but this bill proposes that when the number of officers shall be reduced those relieved from duty shall be put on a retired list. I am not in favor of that. I am in favor of mustering out of service those officers for whose services the Government has no occasion. There is no more justice in putting an unnecessary officer on half pay than there is in putting upon half pay a private who is no longer needed. This bill contemplates that the privates shall be mustered out. They are to be turned loose without a dollar, for there is not one in a thousand who has a dollar within a few weeks after receiving his pay. The privates are to be turned loose upon the country without occupation, while at the same time you propose to retain in service almost an army of general officers for whom the country has no occasion. No mau who is truly a patriot will, when his services are dispensed with, in order to reduce the burdens of the people, and be cause those services are no longer required, say, "I have done service for my country and my country has forgotten me; and in its forgetfulness has inflicted disgrace upon itself and a great wrong upon me." No man with proper self-respect and proper love for his country will say that. For these reasons I am in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I hope it will be adopted. Mr. PILE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the amendment to the amendment. The theory of this bill is that supernumerary officers shall be retained until vacancies occur in their grade, and that subordinate officers below the rank of brigadier general shall be placed upon a list to be relieved and put upon half pay. I am in favor of mustering out of service such major generals and brigadier generals as we have no further occasion for. If we are to adopt the rule that supernumerary officers throughout all the lower grades of the Army shall be mustered out, it certainly would not be proper to retain the supernumerary major generals and brigadier generals. Hence I shall regard the vote upon this amendment as a test of the sense of the House upon the question whether these supernumeraries shall be retained or whether all supernumeraries shall be mustered out. There is, as has been suggested by the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. LOGAN,] a distinction between the position of the officer and that of the private soldier in this respect: the private soldier is enlisted for a term of years, and his pay is not supposed to be such as to make it especially desirable on his part to remain in the service, while the position of the officers is a position for life--a position for which they have prepared themselves by years of study. Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. Do not their commissions run during the pleasure of the President? Mr. PILE. They do; but the practical construction of that, as the gentleman very well knows, is that unless the officer is guilty of some misconduct for which he is amenable under the rules and articles of war, and is sentenced to dismissal by a court-martial, the President cannot dismiss him. Though the commission nominally runs during the pleasure of the President, it is a commission for life unless the officer by misconduct renders himself liable to dismissal by the judgment of a court-martial. Do I un Mr. WASHBURN, of Indiana. derstand the gentleman to say that Congress cannot control this subject? Mr. PILE. Certainly, Congress has power over the whole subject. It can abolish these officers; it can do away with the army entirely; but the President has no such power. [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. CARY. I move to strike out the word "General" and to insert "the President of the United States." Mr. Speaker, I see no reason why this duty should be devolved upon the General of the Army any more than upon the Lieutenant General; but I do see a manifest propriety in it being assigned to the President of the United States, he being the Commander-in-Chief. I am not disposed to occupy my five minutes. It seems to me the propriety of the amendment is apparent. Mr. MUNGEN. I ask my colleague to yield me the remainder of his time. Mr. CARY. I yield to my colleague. Mr. MUNGEN. If I understand the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts in extending the operation of this law to the 1st of January-and I should like to know whether that is not the fact-it is to save General Grant, provided he should not be elected President by the people of the United States. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. No, sir. Mr. MUNGEN. Does this leave General Grant and Lieutenant General Sherman in their present positions? Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Yes, sir. Mr. MUNGEN. I would as soon leave them out as any private soldier. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. One of them will go out next March. Mr. SCHENCK. I rise to oppose the amendment. Mr. Speaker, it seems to be a foregone conclusion that there is to be some reduction of the Army. When we do come to a decision of that sort it seems to me we should approach the subject with a consideration looking to all the interests involved both of public and private citizens affected by our action. Now, sir, it strikes me the mode proposed by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] would be an exceedingly harsh one. I do not pretend to say Congress may not abolish the office of major general, or reduce the number of major generals. I am inclined to think hereafter in our Army three will be enough in any organization we propose to keep up. But what is the amendment? That hereafter there shall be three major generals; that is, after the 1st of January next, and those three shall be designated by the General of the Army. I suppose there are to be three selected from the present five, but the amendment does not say so. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Yes, it does. Mr. SCHENCK. The selection, then, is to be made from the present five major generals. Who are they? Halleck, Meade, Sheridan, Thomas, and Hancock. I am not an especial admirer of General Halleck. I have regarded him always as a paper general, if I may make a criticism of that kind. I do not suppose any one would think of excluding Meade, Sheridan, or George H. Thomas; and I confess I should be unwilling to see a harsh measure of this kind extended to General Hancock, for while I never have believed, if he had been the fortunate or unfortunate man selected for defeat with any of the chances tendered to him by the convention at New York, he would or would not have made much of a President; yet he has proved himself a respectable soldier. Now, these five men entered in boyhood the public service in the profession of arms and have continued up to this time. They have been put upon an increased establishment as compared with what existed before the war. It is now proposed that they shall be thrust out of service in their comparatively old age in this manner, without provision. I object to it. If there has been any wrong in promoting them, in advancing them until we have more of these officers than we need, the wrong has not been theirs. They are not to be blamed for the natural ambition of getting advancement. If there has been any wrong the wrong has been in Congress making this provision for them. Now, after Congress has done this, it seems to me the least thing we could do would be to let them down in some graceful way, considering who they are and what they have done. Mr. LOGAN. Will the gentleman let me ask him a question? Mr. SCHENCK. In five minutes' time one has not much to spare. Mr. LOGAN. Does not the gentleman from Ohio know that quite a number of officers who were educated at West Point, and served in the Army as major generals and brigadier generals, have been compelled to return to the positions of captains and lieutenants ? Mr. SCHENCK. Certainly I do; but that does not make the slightest reply to my argument. These men are now regularly in the service by the action of Congress, obtaining advancement as it has been held open to them, and this amendment proposes to thrust them out without provision, without half pay, without retirement, with only the general declaration, "Begone, we have no further need of your services.""" I am not ready for that. I prefer that we shall gradually let ourselves down from that point to which we extended our legislation, if we are to take a back track upon it; and in letting ourselves down, that while we take care of the public interest, we shall at the same time try not to do any injustice to those who served the country. [Here the hammer fell.] The SPEAKER. The question recurs on the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. CARY.] Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I propose to perfect the text. The SPEAKER. That is in order. Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I move to strike out "four" in both instances where it occurs and insert "three;" so that the section will read: That no vacancies shall hereafter be filled in the office of major general until the number of major generals shall be less than three, and thereafter there shall be but three major generals. I only say in support of this that I fully concur in the remark of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. SCHENCK,] as to the principle of reducing the Army; and, entertaining that view, I move to reduce the number of major generals to three. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I rise to oppose the amendment. Now, sir, let us see what is proposed. We cannot strike out anybody here who does not find a friend to uphold him. We cannot strike out any provision in the Army bill without disturbing the gentleman who is the author of it; for he always stands by his child. Now, I want to call the attention of the House to the provisions of the bill. It proposes to keep these men in office until they die. They never resign. They are of an average age of perhaps forty-five. They are good for thirty years longer. Now, it is proposed to pass a measure called a bill for the reduction of the Army. If we pass this bill as it stands it will be no reduction, but a reductio ad absurdum. Now, let us see further about the argument that these officers shall not be discharged. In the first place General Halleck left the Army before the war and went into the law to serve his own interests after he had been educated at the public expense. I have nothing to say against him. But when he was in the Army he wrote two or three military books. I do not pretend to say whether he is a man to be selected to be discharged or not. I am not going to discuss personally any of these officers. I only say that if we cannot begin here with our reduction-with these general officersif there is not nerve enough in this Congress to stand up here and now, you might as well throw this bill into the fire and go home. What is our proposition? To strike out Now let us have it understood, if we pro- [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. GARFIELD. I rise to oppose the amendment, and to say simply before making a motion, that it is the opinion of the committee that these officers The SPEAKER. Debate is exhausted on the amendment. Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I withdraw the amendment to enable the gentleman to renew it. Mr. GARFIELD. I renew it. It will take some time to reduce the Army as provided in this bill, and during that time a large number of experienced officers are certainly needed in the large departments we now have and the extended number of posts. There are nearly twelve hundred separate military posts now occupied by troops of the United States. And in addition to the reasons given, we thought it would be violent and almost in bad faith to strike down the officers at once. Having said these few words, I move to close debate on this section. The motion was agreed to. The question was taken on the amendment of Mr. WILSON, of Iowa, (renewed by Mr. GARFIELD,) and it was agreed to. The question was next on the motion of Mr. CARY, to amend the substitute for the section offered by Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts, by striking out "General of the Army" and inserting "President of the United States." Mr. BOYER demanded the yeas and nays. The question was put on ordering the yeas and nays; and there were 13 in the affirmative and 71 in the negative. So (one fifth not voting in the affirmative) the yeas and nays were not ordered. Mr. BOYER. I would inquire if a quorum voted? The SPEAKER. It does not need a quorum. By constitutional provision one fifth of those present can order the yeas and nays. If there were only fifteen members present three could order the yeas and nays. The amendment was disagreed to. The question recurred on the amendment offered by Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts, as a substitute for the fourth section. Mr. GARFIELD. I will ask if the gentleman will not consent to let the vote be taken to-morrow when we have a fuller House. [Cries of "No!" "No!"] The SPEAKER. The gentleman can attain his object by moving to reconsider if the amendment shall be adopted. The question was taken on the amendment, and it was agreed to. The Clerk then read the fifth section, as follows. SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That no vacancy shall hereafter be filled in the office of brigadier general until the number of brigadier generals shall be less than eight, and thereafter there shall be but eight brigadier generals. Mr. ALLISON. I move to amend the section by striking out the word "eight," in the two places where it occurs, and inserting "five." The amendment was agreed to. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I move to strike out all after the enacting words of the section and to insert in lieu thereof what I send to the desk. The Clerk read as follows: There shall be but six brigadier generals, and the officers who shall retain their commissions as such shall be designated by the General of the Army without regard to seniority, and all others shall be mustered out of service on the 1st day of January next. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I do not care to debate it. Mr. SCHENCK. I do. I propose to op pose it. Mr. Speaker, all the answer that I need to make to what is insisted upon by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] and others in reply to what I have before said of the injustice of this summary mode of proceeding considered in a proper light, they have answered themselves by going for the first two sections of the bill. By their votes they admit that a General is not needed in the organization proposed for the Army. By their votes they also admit that a Lieutenant General is not needed. But, by their votes they say that in the case of the General they will wait until a vacancy occurs and then there shall be no future General appointed; and by their votes they say that in the case of the Lieutenant General, they will let him continue in office until a vacancy occurs and then no successor shall be appointed. The very principle, therefore, for which I contend as being the principle that pervades this bill, they themselves have sustained in the first and second sections of the bill. If it be right as to the General, if it be not wrong as to the Lieutenant General, then surely and on principle it is as right and as far from wrong as applied to major generals or to brigadier generals. Mr. LOGAN. We want a head of the Army. Mr. SCHENCK. The gentleman says we want a head of the Army. Suppose that be so; if you abolish your General you have the Lieutenant General for the head of the Army; if you abolish the Lieutenant General you have the senior major-general; if you abolish the major generals you have the senior brigadier general; and so on. Therefore that consideration is entitled to no weight. Do what you may, you still have a head of the Army; muster out or retain, in either case there would be some officer remaining senior to all the rest. So that does not answer my propo and this was a sufficient reason if we had no other. So we do keep the Lieutenant General Mr. SCHENCK. We are always to keep sition. All I contend for is this: enter upon We think that in the course of forty years there Now, if we do not want a General, if we do not want a Lieutenant General, why not apply your rule of at once reducing the Army by getting rid of these still higher officers, who, if anything, are wanted still less than those of the lower grades? The suggestion of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. LOGAN] that you would not then have a head to the Army, is no answer to the proposition, because, reduce the Army as you may, there would still be some officer senior to all the rest who would be the accepted head of the Army. It must be, therefore, that it is not thought advisable to apply the same rule to one class of officers that you propose to apply to the others, yet I cannot understand why the distinction should be drawn. I am not opposing the reduction of the Army. I am not seeking to preserve what the gentle-military officers. That is the English system, man from Massachusetts [Mr. BUTLER] Seems to think my own peculiar child. I have my own opinion in regard to the reduction or the enlargement of the Army. I have my own opinion in regard both to the officers and the privates. I will not enter into a controversy as to who sympathizes most or least with the privates. I leave that for every soldier who ever served under me to decide for himself. [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I move to amend the amendment pro forma by striking out the last word. This is not a new dilemma for us to be in. After the late war with Great Britain, Scott and Gaines were both major generals. They claimed rights against each other, which finally led to an open quarrel between them. To compose that quarrel, John Quincy Adams hunted up General Macomb, who was almost paralyzed, and put him in command, in order to have a senior officer to compose the difficulties between Scott and Gaines. He also made two great military departments-the department of the East and the department of the West, and put Scott in one and Gaines in the other, so as to keep them apart; and to keep the peace between them. That went on until Macomb 'died. Then came the Mexican war. After the Mexican war, the same trouble arose between Wool and Scott. Scott was made Lieutenant General by brevet-he being at the time a major general-and Wool was made a major general by brevet. That composed all difficulties there, and gave an acknowledged head. Now, sir, the reason we did not strike down the General was that some of us have a reasonable expectation that there will be a vacancy in the course of a few months in that office; and then there being a vacancy in the office of General, it would not only be removing him for three months, if we put him on the same ground as to vacating his office with the major general. We come, then, to the position of Lieutenant General. That officer we keep so that there may be a head to the Army-an acknowledged head with authority in his own right-not an accidental head that any President may overslaugh or whose orders any President may reverse by relieving him. This is our reason for retaining the office of Lieutenant General; I know; and I fear we are fast verging toward [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. GARFIELD. Mr. Speaker, in answer to what has been said by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. BUTLER,] I desire to say that his argument in favor of retaining the Lieutenant General, if good at all, is good in favor of always having a Lieutenant General, so as to have a recognized head of the Army, not an officer who can be assigned by the President of the United States at his pleasure. profession of his life, he becomes, after a time, unfitted for other pursuits. Not so in any other department of the Government to anything like the same extent. A man who lives many years in the Army cannot go to business. He is out of the range of employments which belong to civil life. It seems to me, therefore, to be a just principle recognized in England, recognized in France, recognized in all the civilized nations of the world, that an officer of the army shall be treated with some special regard in reference to his tenure of office. I shall be sorry, sir, to see any attack upon the Army of the United States, which I believe to-day has no peer on the face of the earth; an Army made up of men who have won fame on many battle-fields, and in a manner most honorable to our country. They took their places in the Army as now constituted with the distinct understanding that they were fixed and permanent places. Why, sir, in the bill which passed when my colleague[Mr.SCHENCK] was chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, it was declared in the title that it was an act "to fix the military peace establishment of the United States." Every man who took position under that law understood it was a part of the fixed and permanent establishment. Every man now holding a commission in the Army holds it as he understood at the beginning as a commission which shall not be affected except by decision of court martial upon his own merits or demerits. Now, to say that these commissions shall be vacated, that these men shall be thrown out, is to violate all the customs of civilized nations, and all the customs of our own during all our history. [Here the hammer fell.] The question was upon the amendment to the amendment. Mr. GARFIELD. I hope by unanimous consent all further debate on this section will be closed. Mr. PAINE. I hope not; I wish to say a word. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. I withdraw the amendment to the amendment. Mr. PAINE. I offer the following amend ment. The Clerk read as follows: Add the following: There shall be but six brigadier generals after the 31st day of March 1869, and the officers who shall retain their commissions as such shall, after the tenth day of March, 1869, be designated by the President of the United States without regard to seniority, and all others shall be mustered out of the service on the 31st of March, 1869. Mr. PAINE. Mr. Speaker, I hope I should never for one moment be willing to say or do anything upon this floor or elsewhere which One word in regard to the section now under consideration. There are now ten brigadier generals. We have many different kinds of military duty to be performed, requiring offi cers of considerable rank. If the proposition presented by the gentleman from Massachu-would seem to involve a want of appreciation setts should prevail, we shall then have but six brigadier generals in the Army; and with our great extent of country, with the military departments and the districts within those departments, we should not have a general officer to command each leading department and sub-department. In addition to that, let me say once for all that it has been the purpose of the Committee on Military Affairs to reduce the Army as much as we thought the condition of the country required, while at the same time we have endeavored to avoid all invidious personal distinctions and all personal injustice. And it seems to me that if we require the General of the Army to determine which of his comrades in arms shall be dropped from the Army and which retained, we shall impose upon him a duty which we ought not to ask him to perform. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Then put it on the President. Mr. GARFIELD. If it is proposed to put it on the President of the United States, I ask whether gentlemen on this side of the Hall are willing that the President shall perform that duty at his discretion? One word further. The profession of arms is recognized throughout the world as peculiar in this that when a man has adopted it as the of the services of the offices and enlisted men of the Army of the United States, but I cannot for one consent that any particular class of officers should be picked out and allowed upon this floor to monopolize the fruits and results of aH the honor and all the merit which attached to the entire Army during the war. I cannot be satisfied to hear my friend behind me [Mr. GARFIELD] say, when so many men served gallantly and meritoriously in the last war, that a few men shall be picked out and made the recipients of the honors and benefits which we are so ready and willing to accord to the great Army which crushed the late rebellion. Let us give honor where honor is due. Let us give to these men now in the Army the honor that is due to them, but for heaven's sake do not let us shower down upon their heads all the honor won by the volunteer and regular officers and soldiers from the beginning of this war to the end. And let us not for one moment forget the provisions of the eighth section of this bill, in which the gentleman himself proposes to put upon half pay all junior officers of the Army who shall be thrown out of full commission as the result of the consolidation of regiments from sixty down to forty-one. Let us not for get that the gentleman himself adopts in this bill the very principle he now deprecates. He says that when a man enters the Army as General Halleck did for the second time he enters it for life, and so understands it, and yet he proposes to cut out the officers of nineteen regiments who happen, indeed, to be junior in rank, but who, I venture to say, won their commissions, in a large majority of cases, on the field of battle itself. Mr. GARFIELD. We do not cut out those men at all. Mr. PAINE. The committee retires them from active service on haif pay. Mr. GARFIELD. No: we do not retire them. They are simply relieved temporarily, until vacancies occur. Mr. PAINE. Call it by whatever name you will, they are virtually robbed of their commissions and left mere pensioners in the Army. Mr. GARFIELD. They are withheld from duty. Mr. RAUM. There is a provision in this bill which authorizes the Secretary of War to detail these officers on special service. Mr. PAINE. I am aware of that; it is a proviso in the eighth section. Mr. RAUM. That proviso will certainly put very nearly all these officers on active duty. Mr. PAINE. I cannot yield any longer. The sole effect of that is to neutralize, so far as it goes, the whole plan of reduction.'" But I must ask the attention of the House to one great fallacy into which my friend has fallen. He says that when these officers entered the Army they were justified in the understanding that it would become to them a permanent position. Sir, the Constitution of the United States stands directly across the track of the gentleman when he makes that assertion. The Constitution provides that appropriations for the Army shall be limited to two years; and if we do not know it from our study of the history of the convention which framed that instrument, yet Thomas Jefferson has told us and James Madison has told us that that provision was incorporated for the express purpose of guarding against semblance of anything like permanency in the military establishment; placed there for the express purpose of affording to either branch of the Legislature an opportunity in every period of two years to abolish the Army of the United States in spite of the other branch of the Legislature and in spite of the Presi dent by withholding appropriations for its support. Mr. MILLER. Does the gentleman desire to retain all those officers? Mr. PAINE. Oh, no. Mr. GARFIELD. I would not rise now but for what seems to be a very probable misunderstanding, if not misrepresentation, on the part of my friend from Wisconsin. I perfectly recognize what the gentleman says, that the Constitution of the United States provides that no appropriation for the Army shall last for more than two years. The purpose of that provision is that the civil shall always control the military establishment of the Government, and the provision is made so as to give either branch of Congress the power to control the military establishment. But I wish to know if the gentleman means, by the interpretation of the Constitution he has given, to intimate that it was ever presumed that the Congress of the United States would abolish the Army altogether? Mr. PAINE. I will answer the gentleman that it was the design of the framers of the Constitution to put it in the power of the Senate alone or of the House alone at any time in two years to abolish the Army of the United States in spite of the other branch or in spite of the President. Mr. GARFIELD. Well, I have said that myself just now. But does the gentleman suppose it was the purpose or intention of Congress ever to use that power absolutely to abolish the Army? 40TH CONG. 2D SESS.--No. 248. Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. What is the use of having it? Mr. GARFIELD. I suppose every gentleman will agree that the halcyon day will never come, the glorious age will never arrive, when we will not need to keep an Army; and while we do keep it the Congress of the United States, I suppose, will endeavor to retain its valuable officers and its men of experience. CLERICAL FORCE STATE DEPARTMENT. Mr. BANKS, by unanimous consent, presented a communication from the Department of State in relation to a deficiency in the clerical force of that Department; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. MOUNT VERNON LADIES' ASSOCIATION. Mr. SCHENCK. I propose to the House to take up from the Speaker's table the bill (S. No. 588) for the relief of the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association of the Union. It has passed the Senate, and a large majority of the House once agreed to pass it; but it required a suspension of the rules. Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio. I object. Mr. SCHENCK. As my colleague is a standing objection, I move that the House do now adjourn. The motion was agreed to, and the House (at half past ten o'clock p. m.) adjourned. PETITIONS, ETC. The following petitions, &c., were presented under the rule, and referred to the appropriate committees: Now, one word in reply to the gentleman's suggestion that I have intimated that all the wisdom and glory of the late great struggle was concentrated in the regular Army, I am not behind any gentleman in my admiration of the great body of citizen soldiers who won the victory and saved the nation. But I desire to say that while there are thousands of noble men, not now in the Army, who did their part as worthily as any who are in it, yet our present Army has in it more history, more glory, and the record of more heroism and patriotism than any other Army that ever existed in time of peace; and I for one, though I am compelled by the necessities of the country to put the knife to the Army and reduce it nearly fifty per cent., will not by my voice or vote consent that we shall strike down by the brutal force of numbers half the official staff of the Army, only to be under the necessity of reappointing them in less than six months. By papers from the Secretary of War which I now hold in my hand, it is shown that the Army, by the reduction now going on by usual casualties, will by the 1st of July next have reached twenty-eight thousand men. Officers are resigning fast. Many who received wounds and became partially incapacitated during the war are becoming invalids. Many are leaving the Army for other reasons. All that is needed is that we simply let these patriotic men holding that the forfeited franchises of a certain their positions on half pay or in regular active service for a few months, and the Army will reduce itself. [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. LOGAN obtained the floor. Mr. PAINE. I will withdraw my amendment if the gentleman will renew it. I want a vote upon it. Mr. LOGAN. I will renew it. Mr. MAYNARD. Is it in order to move to aujourn? I suggest to the gentleman who has charge of the bill that it is now nearly half past ten o'clock. We have been here for three hours. I dislike to make the motion without his consent. The SPEAKER. When the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. LOGAN] closes his remarks a motion to adjourn will be in order. Mr. LOGAN. I will give way for a motion to adjourn. Mr. GARFIELD. I would inquire if this bill will come up to-morrow? The SPEAKER. It will be the unfinished business immediately after the reading of the Journal. ROCK ISLAND BRIDGE. On motion of Mr. PRICE. by unanimous consent the amendments of the Senate to the joint resolution (H. R. No. 201) in relation to the Rock Island bridge were taken from the Speaker's table. The amendments of the Senate were read and concurred in, as follows: By the SPEAKER: The petition of J. A. Richardson, Elizabethtown, North Carolina, for removal of political disabilities incurred by participation in the rebellion. By Mr. ALLISON: A memorial of Roswell Bates, asking for back pension on account of services in the war of 1812. Also, the claim of heirs of Richard Cheney for reimbursement on account of lands sold by the United States. By Mr. LAWRENCE, of Pennsylvania: The petition of General Leon and others, ask railroad in Louisiana be granted to parties herein named, that the road may be completed. By Mr. TRIMBLE, of Kentucky: The petition of T. M. Davis and others, praying for the improvement of Cumberland bar, in the Ohio river. IN SENATE. SATURDAY, July 11, 1868. Prayer by Rev. E. H. GRAY, D. D. On motion of Mr. CONNESS, and by unanimous consent, the reading of the Journal of yesterday was dispensed with. PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS. Mr. POMEROY presented a petition of citizens of Kansas, praying for the establishment of a mail route from Waterville to Wishita; which was referred to the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads. Mr. CONKLING presented a petition of citizens of New York, praying for the passage of the bill granting pensions to the surviving soldiers in the war of 1812; which was ordered to lie on the table, a bill on that subject having been reported from the Committee on Pensions. He also presented a memorial of merchants and importers of New York city, in relation to the appraisement of merchandise; which was referred to the Committee on Finance. Mr. WILLEY presented the petition of Hoy McLane, of Beverly, West Virginia, praying for compensation for a house destroyed and Page 1, line eight, after the word "island" insert the lumber thereof appropriated to the build to connect said island with the cities of Davenport and Rock Island." Page 2, line thirteen, after "sixty-six" insert "And provided, also, that in no case shall the expenditure on the part of the United States exceed $1,000,000." Add the following new section: SEC. 3. And be it further resolved, That any bridge built under the provisions of this resolution shall be constructed so as to conform to the requirements of section two of an act entitled "An act to authorize the construction of certain bridges and to establish them as post roads," approved July 25, 1866. Mr. PRICE moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendments of the Senate were concurred in: and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The latter motion was agreed to. ing of barracks for the soldiers of the twentyeighth Ohio volunteers, in November, 1863; which was referred to the Committee on Claims. Mr. WILSON presented a petition of offi cers of the Army, praying for the passage of the bill "to fix and equalize the pay of officers, and to establish the pay of enlisted soldiers in the Army;" which was referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia. Mr. ROSS presented resolutions of the Board of Trade of Leavenworth, Kansas, in favor of the ratification of the treaty with the Osage Indians; which were referred to the il Committee on Indian Affairs. Mr. CRAGIN presented a report of a committee of the Legislature of Montana, recommending the passage of a memorial to Congress, praying for an appropriation for the purpose of paying the Montana volunteers for the late expedition against the Indians; which was referred to the Committee on Territories. Mr. MORRILL, of Maine, presented additional papers in relation to the claim of John H. Crowell; which were referred to the Committee on Claims. REPORTS OF COMMITTEEE. Mr. VAN WINKLE, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom were referred the following bills, reported them without amendment: A bill (H. R. No. 1239) granting a pension to Owen Griffin; A bill (H. R. No. 1240) granting a pension to Margaret Lewis; A bill (H. R. No. 1241) granting a pension to Mrs. Mary Brown; A bill (H. R. No. 1242) granting a pension to Esther Fisk; A bill (H. R. No. 1243) granting a pension to William O. Dodge; A bill (H. R. No. 1244) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of Solomon Gause; A bill (H. R. No. 1245) granting a pension to Matthew C. Griswold; A bill (H. R. No. 1244) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of Hiram Hitchcock; A bill (II. R. No. 1247) granting a pension to Orlena Walters; A bill (H. R. No. 1248) granting a pension to Elizabeth Richardson; A bill (H. R. No. 1249) granting a pension to Margaret C. Long; A bill (H. R. No. 1250) granting a pension to James Rooney; A bill (H. R. No. 1251) granting a pension to Charles Hamstead; A bill (H. R. No. 1252) granting a pension to the minor children of Garrett W. Freer. A bill (H. R. No. 1253) granting a pension to Julia L. Doty; and A bill (H. R. No. 1254) granting a pension to Francis M. Webster. REPORT OF ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. Mr. ANTHONY. The Committee on Printing, to whom was referred a resolution to print additional copies of the report of the National Academy of Sciences for the year 1867, have instructed me to report it back with an amendment as a substitute, and I ask for its present consideration. There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution. Mr. ANTHONY. The Clerk need read only the substitute. The Chief Clerk read the amendment, as follows: Resolved, That the report of the operations of the National Academy of Sciences for 1867-68 be printed; and that one thousand extra copies be printed for the use of the Senate, and one thousand extra copies be printed for the use of the Academy. The amendment was agreed to. The resolution, as amended, was adopted. BILLS INTRODUCED. Mr. CRAGIN asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 611) authorizing the appointment of a commission to examine the claim of the Territory of Montana for volunteers during the late Indian war, and to report upon the same; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Territories, and ordered to be printed. Mr. CONKLING asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 612) in relation to the proof of wills in the District of Columbia; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia, and ordered to be printed. JAMES COEY. Mr. CONNESS submitted the following 二二 resolution; which was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to: Resolved, That the President be requested to communicate to the Senate whether a commission has been issued to James Coey, who has been nominated and confirmed as collector for the first internal revenue district of California; and if the same has not been issued, the reasons therefor. AMENDMENTS TO PENSION BILLS. On motion by Mr. VAN WINKLE, the Senate proceeded to consider the amendments of the House of Representatives to the following bills of the Senate: A bill (S. No. 175) for the relief of Joseph McGhee Cameron, and Mary Jane Cameron, minor children of La Fayette Cameron, deceased; A bill (S. No. 382) granting an increase of pension to Obadiah T. Plum; A bill (S. No. 422) granting a pension to Maria Schweitzer and the children of Conrad Schweitzer, deceased; A bill (S. No. 518) granting a pension to the widow and child of John P. Felty; A bill (S. No. 547) granting a pension to John Sheets; A bill (S. No. 314) for the relief of George T. Brien; A bill (S. No. 383) granting a pension to John A. Weed and Elizabeth J. Weed, minor children of Robert T. Weed, deceased; A bill (S. No. 517) granting a pension to the widow and children of Henry Brown; and A bill (S. No. 521) granting a pension to the children of William M. Wooten, deceased. The message also announced that the House had passed the following bills, in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate: A bill (H. R. No. 1337) granting an increase of pension to Frances T. Richardson, widow of the late Major General Israel B. Richardson; and A bill (H. R. No. 1363) granting an increase of pension to Emily B. Bidwell, widow of Brigadier General Daniel D. Bidwell. On motion by Mr. VAN WINKLE, it was Resolved, That the Senate disagree to the amendments of the House of Representatives to the above mentioned bills, and ask a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon. Ordered, That the conferees on the part of the Senate be appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate. The PRESIDENT pro tempore appointed Mr. VAN WINKLE, Mr. TRUMBULL, and Mr. EDMUNDS. REGISTRATION OF FOREIGN VESSELS. Mr. MORGAN. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 1119, reported from the Committee on Commerce. It is a bill of about twenty lines, and will not occupy any time. The motion was agreed to; and the bill (H. R. No. 1119) for the registration or enrollment of certain foreign vessels was considered as in Committee of the Whole. It directs the Secretary of the Treasury to issue certificates of registry or enrollment and license to the schooner Bob, of Saint Andrew, New Brunswick; and to the following named Canadianbuilt vessels, to wit: the schooner Royal Albert, of Oakville; the bark John Breden, the schooner Prince Alfred, and the brigantine Orkney Lass, all of Kingston; the schooner George Henry, of Toronto; the schooner Annexation, of Port Hope; and the schooner Emperor, of Saint Catharines; also to the barges Champlain and Hochelega, of Quebec; the bark Monarch, the brig Sea Gull, and the schooner Smith and Post, all of Oakville; the schooner Welland, of Saint Catherines; the schooner Governor, of Montreal; the schooner L. S. Shicklana, of Saint Catharines; the schooner Victoria, of Toronto; those vessels being owned by citizens of the United States, and having been at all times employed upon the waters of the lakes; but there is to be paid upon each of the foreign-built vessels a tax equal to the internal revenue tax upon the materials and construction of similar vessels of American build. The bill was reported to the Senate without amendment, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE. A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. MCPHERSON, its Clerk, announced that the House had agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the following bills: A bill (H. R. No. 373) to place the name of Mahala A. Straight upon the pension-roll of the United States; A bill (H. R. No. 456) granting a pension to the minor children of Pleasant Stoops; A bill (H. R. No. 518) granting a pension to George F. Gorham, late a private in company B, twenty-ninth regiment Massachusetts volunteer infantry; A bill (H. R. No. 522) granting a pension to W. W. Cunningham; A bill (H. R. No. 535) granting a pension to Jeremiah T. Hallett; A bill (H. R. No. 661) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of William Craft; A bill (H. R. No. 662) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of George R. Waters; A bill (H. R. No. 663) granting a pension to Cyrus K. Wood, the legal representative of Cyrus D. Wood; A bill (H. R. No. 664) granting a pension to the minor children of Charles Gouler; A bill (H. R. No. 666) granting a pension to Henry H. Hunter; A bill (H. R. No. 669) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of Myron Wilklow; A bill (H. R. No. 670) granting a pension to the widow and children of Andrew Holman; A bill (H. R. No. 521) to place the name of Solomon Zachman on the pension-roll; A bill (H. R. No. 673) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of John S. Phelps; A bill (H. R. No. 672) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of Charles W. Wilcox; A bill (H. R. No. 676) granting a pension to Thomas Connolly; A bill (H. R. No. 677) granting a pension to the minor children of James Heatherly; A bill (H. R. No. 770) granting a pension to John H. Finlay ; A bill (H. R. No. 675) granting a pension to the widow and minor children of Cornelius L. Rice; A bill (H. R. No. 771) granting a pension to John L. Lay; A bill (H. R. No. 773) granting a pension to William H. McDonald; and A bill (H. R. No. 825) granting a pension to John W. Hughes. The message further announced that the House had passed the following bill and joint resolution: A bill (S. No. 307) for the relief of certain Government contractors; and A joint resolution (S. R. No. 81) placing certain troops of Missouri on an equal footing with others as to bounties. The message also announced that the House had agreed to the amendments of the Senate to the following joint resolutions: A joint resolution (H. R. No. 201) in relation to the Rock Island bridge; and A joint resolution (H. R. No. 292) directing the Secretary of War to sell damaged or unserviceable arms, ordnance, and ordnance stores. FREEDMEN'S BUREAU. Mr. WILSON. I move to take up the bill (S. No. 567) relating to the Freedmen's Bureau and providing for its discontinuance. I presume it will take but a moment. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill. It provides that the duties and powers of Commissioner of the Bureau for the Relief of Freedmen and Refugees shall continue to be discharged by the present Commissioner of the bureau, and in case of vacancy |