Mr. WOODBRIDGE. I move to amend in l“ine 4 by strikin out “six” and inserting ten, ” and in line live by striking out " 50 ” and inserting “ 46;” so it will read: That the military penceestablishmentof the U.S shall hereafterconsistof 5 regimentsof artillery. tenregimentsofcavnlry, 46 regiments of innntry. the professors and corps of cadets of the U.S.Militur Academy, and such other forcesas shall beprovide for bythis act, to beknown as the Army of the U.S. Mr. Speaker, while I am quite as anxious as anybody else to reduce t ie expenditures of the Government, while I should agree with many of my friends probably upon both sides of the House, that a large standing army is inconsistent with republican institutions, yet, sir, ifI had my own way under the present condition of thin s, I would provide for a much larger army than is provided for in this bill. Sir, the testimony which has been taken before a certain committee of this House within the last 4 or 5 months clearly indicates to me at least, although the former rebellions States are, in my judgment, as in the judgment of the Gentfrom NewYork, [lin RAY. iuoNn] who spoke yesterday, not in a condition to offer violence. still the military arm of the Government may be required there to a certain extent at least to enforce the law and protect the people. Again, sir, within the last few days we have heard of comlications in Europe which may lead to war of a magnitude unaralleled here tofore in the history of the world; and in these complications it may be well for us, although we are at peace with all the world, to be prepared for any contingency which may arise. I fear this House is opposed to increasing the Army to an amount larger than that provided in the bill. Hence I move to strike out ““ 50 ” and insert “46;” and strike out 6” and insert “ten;” because I believe the cavalr arm of the service is eminently needed. f my amendment succeeds we will have ten instead of 6 regiments of cavalry, and 46 regiments of infantry instead of 50. We know very well at the commencement of the recent war the cavalry arm of the service was not thought to be of account at all, and when applications were made the then Lieutenant General of the Army refused them, declaring he did not approve of the cavalry arm. For a long time we met with nothing but disaster and defeat, when the most emi nent military men of the country found out that under the present system of warfare the most efficient branch of the service was the cavalry. Look at our domain. Look at the vast emi gration which is filling up the great Northwest from the Mississippi to the Pacific coast. How are they to be protected on their wdy to the mining districts? Infantry cannot do it. artillery can'iiot do it. It is only cavalry can protect the emigrants who are making their way westward. Why, ah", the cavalry is the only arm of the service in the extreme West which can be efficient. I know this bill provides in a subsequent portion that the President may at his option change a certain number ofinfantry to cavalry regiments. We all know that will not answer the purpose. We all know when infantry is mounted as cavalry it takes months and months to perfect them in the duties they are called upon to perform. Here the hammer fell.]