Mr. CHANLER. Ifeel mnchgratified, Mr. Speaker. in being able to unite with the chair man of the ComMilAffrs in his laudable efforts to reduce the orgarrizatidn of the Army. I understand the gentlemans motive, as he has asserted, to be one based n on the peace establishment. I haveno doubt that this section is fair. It stipulatesthe manner in which the reductionis to take place. The reduction, however, seems to be not so muehof a consolidation as emotion of 06 cers from the rank they now old in the Army Register of 1865, promotion from the rank of majorto colonel and lieutenant colonel. Now, the point of issue between the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. Taurus] and the Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. Senen ex] seems to be “whittled down" to the question of 2 captains of cavalry. The r action of the armies of the U.S. is to take this form, with an expenditure of $38,000,000 perannum to support an or nizstion of 72 regiments. The Gentfrom Ohio [Mr. Sentzxrx] prouses to change the present organization of he Armyb simply romoting in the different bureaus dlfferento cers from the rank of captain. It seems to me to be reduced to a point of but little difference to the tax payers, except as to the increase of officers who are promoted. The number of officers employed in the nartermasters Dept, as recorded in the m Register for 1865, is 78. The number as suggested by the substitute of the Gentfrom Pennsyvania is 77, and the number suggested by the Gentfrom Ohio is 76, a more reduction of 2 in the Army of the U.S., in face of all the eloquence of the Gentfrom Ohio. We have spent 2 whole days in regard to the pronety of a reduction in the quarter masters Dept of 2 officers holding the rank of captain, while the gentleman proposes an increase in that bureau of the rank of 2 officers, so that there shall be 2 colonels. In the section now before the House we have 6 quartermasters, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of a colonel, while in the present organization we have only 3. That is a reduction adabs urdum. There are also ten quarterrnasters with the rank, ay, and emoluments of a lieutenant colonel of cavalry. That is in the pending section of the bill offered by the Gentfrom Ohio. The lieutenant co onels rn the present organization are 4. There happens to be 11 majors in the present organization and 15 in this bill, while the number of captains is diminishd. Again, sir, by this bill we have a reiestablishment of this bureau whereby all the precedents on record in the War Office are changed, whereby all the routine of that Dept is threatened with discord and confusion, while the whole question of retrenchment is forgotten in the question of promotion. Who are to be benefited by this system? Is the object of this bill as has been charged here by gentlemen on the Administration side, not upon this side of the House? The charge has been made specifically and directly that this is a personal question. If there were wanted ground or proof, it would be found in this section, unless refuted by the Gentfrom Ohio. Why, sir, under the plea of a peace establishment, should there be promotion of officers in this Dept unless called for? Where is the necessity? You reduce the Army from its present vast proportion down to 72 regiments, and while reducing it you promote the officers left in the organization, and you increase their salary by their promotion. Sir, a standing army may be a necessity; I mean a standing army of the size suggested by Lieutenant GenlGrant and the SecyWar. I do not presume to criticise thatnecessity, but upon the general argument, whether we should or should not have a large standing army, I stand arrayed against any system which leaves us incumbered with the expense of $88,000,000 perannum for that organization. We are entitled, the people of the country are entitled. tomore consideration after their losses and with the heavy burdens of taxation imposed upon them. The period has never existed when a standing nrmy. so far as fitness of the people to protect themselves is concerned, was less needed than at present. The people of the country, on both sides of the Potomac, are an armed militia, ready at the 1st sound of the bugle or of the drum to full in line, as they have been in face of each other, against the common enemy. For the suppression of insurrection there is now, hap.ily, no need. For protection on our borders tie force we now have is amply sufficient and the gentleman on the other side who spoke so eloquently the other day [Mr. Hnmnno, of“ Illinois] and took the lead on this question on the Administratioriside against a large standing army, said he would undertake with a division of cavalry and of infantryto hold this country in perfect security for all time to come. I understood the gentleman to say that, and I believe he is right and I hope he will have an opportunity of testing the fact by a properreduction of the standing Army. Then we will see whether the people of this country are not capable of self government without the aid of a military organization of such gigantic reportions gigantrc, not in the case of the late struggle, not in consideration of the armies which we have lately had in the field, but gigantic as compared with what has been required in the past history or by the present condition of this country. In view of the fact that )eoee lies at the bottom of our institutions an that the people are willing at all times to hold themselves in readiness for the defense of the country, standing as the people do today, educated to govern themselves, educated in military matters by the militia law in every State, ready to go to the front at their countrys call, we need, in my humble opinion, no such gigantic military organization as is proposed by this bill. Sir, the defense of this country at this time does not depend upon your Army. Admit that the threatened invasion of the northeastern border may be well founded, that cannot be used as a pretext for a large standing army. There is not force enough in the British Provinces to call for such an army as this. A war with GreatBritain, if it should ever come, would have to be waged mainly at see and I maintain that this system of retrenchment of the Army is in direct contradiction of the system adopted in regard to the Navy. This is a retrenchment whereby officers are promoted, whereby gentlemen are charged with advancing the interests of their special favorites. But there is a great favorite of this country which won for us much honor, and which has placed our do as high as it ever floated even in the late civi war, and which has never been treated by this bod or by this Administration with due respect. The knife has been up lied there without scruple and without consideration. I refer, sir, to the Navy. I do not know wh the gentlemen on the Military Committee should be called upon to state that in the organization of the bureaus of the Army such an immense force is necessary to carry it on, while the Navy repuires but a minimum of the same number. hat may be the secret. Patronage may underlie it all. It may be that the Army organization is a better machine for political purposes than the Navy can be. If so, so much the eater necessity for retrenchment. I will admit that the necessity of promotions arises in an inverse proportion, but it cannot be that political patronage is the secret of this romotron. It cannot be that, using the positron of the chairman of the committee, the Gentfrom Ohio [hH.SE HI IKCI] has been misled from any personal feelings in this question. gliere the hammer fell.