Mr. DAVIS. I move to amend the amendment so as to make the number of infantry regiments 45. I am opposed to the principle of reducing our Army to any considerable extent. I think we should have it increased so that it shall be on efficient power for the protection of the country; but I desire the increase to come in a mode and in the arm of the service which is not yet provided for in this bill. I think we should have an increase of the cavalry force. Now,if gentlemen will reflect for one moment upon the present condition of the country, its exposed frontier at the West, and the state of the country at the South, it will not take long, I think, for any gentleman to make up his iuind that the cavalry branch of the service is more important than any other, and yet by the provisions of this bill we are to have but 5 cavalr regiments, or 5,000 cavalry. Officers who are experienced in that branch of the service, some of quite as much experience as any in the country, one of them, General A. J. Smith, who has served for a long time as chief of artillery in the valley of the mississippi, who has been upon the frontier, who has been beyond the mountains upon the pay cific slope he and other officers have informed me that the force of 5,000 cavalry is entirely inade note to the present wants of the country. And therefore, although I am opposed to the reduction of the number of infan try regiments iu the manner indicated by the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. Ls BLosn] still I am in favor of an increase of the cavalry force. And as it is understood that this 1st section is to be passed over for the present, I will give notice that at the proper time I propose to move to increase the number of regiments to that provided for by the Senate bill, to 12 regiments, or even to increase them to 15 regiments. I withdraw my amendment to the amendment. Y Mr. SCHENCK. For the purpose of making some further explanations, I will move to amend the amendment so as to make the number of infantry regiments 55. The ComMilAffrs have endeavored to accommodate this bill to the most manifest wish of the House in the present form in which this bill is reported. The House, after full discussion, passed a on the question whether they would or wou d not make provision in the Army bill for the wounded officers and wounded men of the service by reserving the Veteran Reserve corps. Taking that as instructions, the committee, without restoring the old Veteran Reserve corps at all, which consists of 24 re iments, have provided that there shall be a eteran Reserve corps made u of wounded officers and wounded men, ta ren indiscriminately from all arms of the service, to the extent of ten regiments. The House just as unmistakably expressed itself upon the question of retaining a portion of the colored troops. 8 regiments, as proosed in the former bill; and the committee as therefore permitted that provision to stand. There was no disposition manifested by the House to disband or dismiss any portion of the regular Army as it now exists. The infantry of the regular Army, as everybody knows, consists often old regiments, of 1,000 men each, and 9 new regiments which were added early in the war and which are required bylaw to be disbanded within one year after the termination of hostilities.)I‘he committee has preserved those 9 regiments now of the 1 regular Army; but in order to provide for as “ small a number as possible of new regiments we have added to the 206teen companies 4 new companies, making 22 new regiments instead of 27 as provided for in the former bill. If the amendment of my colleague [Mr. LEBnoxn] should prevail it will follow 0 necessity that the House must get rid of all provision for wounded officers and men, or must dispense with the colored troops or some portion of the existing regular Army. The committee felt themselves instructed by the action of the House to endeavor to diminish, as far as they could, the force proposed in the former bill. In doing this they have provided, as I have just remarked, for 22 new regimentsin the regular Army, instead of 20 seveii. They have also dropped the 6 new regiments‘of cavalry. as formerly proposed, and in lieu of the provision for new cavalry regiments they have provided in this bill that the President may at any time, at (hisdiscretion, mount a portion of the infantry to serve as cavalry. notexceedingin number 6 regiments. Sir. I do not know that I differ at all with the Gentfrom NewYork [Mr. DAVIS] in my general view upon the of our Army. I am bol to say that I do not think our Army ought now to be reduced. I do not think that the 1stbill or thisbill or any bill which has yet been presented proposed too large a force. I think we shall find need for all the army we may have. We shall require a large military force for frontierduty, for duty at forts throughout the interior, and for service in the South, too, if we expect the peace to he kept against all the prevailing influences tending to break the eace. But the House has certainly most muni estly expressed adesireto limit within as narrow a compass as possible the number of the force to he provided for in this bill; and we have endeavored to accom‘ modate ourselves to this view, without disre garding these other manifestations of opinion on the part of the House, indicating an unwillingness to turn adrift any of these proposed portions of the Army, as provided for in the former bill.