Mr. GARFIELD. I desire to say:1.word in reply to what the chairman of the military committee [Mia Senzse it] has said in favor of 3 years eulistments. He says he desires to encour age the yOung men of this country to go into the Army a short time, to see life, to get a taste of military life, before they enter upon what will be their permanent pursuits of life. Now, that may be very pleasant for the young men themselves; but it seems to me our true theory should be to legislate for the best interests of the Army and of the Government. The suggestion of the gentleman, however, is but a part of the general principle which seems to be prevailing in this country, that offices and positions O any sort are a kind of gift, or rat or a sort of lumudding, which everybody hasa right to ta e a bite of, and when he has had his bit c, some one else should be allowed to take a bite. Now, it occurs to me that offices and positions are rather for the benefit of the Government than especially for the benefit of classes of people and if the principle Of rotation must he adopted in offices generally, it occurs to me that it adbetter not be adopted when we are organizinga great army for a rent Government. For my part, I believe that this habit Of encouraging our young men to dash into this little occupation and that little occupation, having no fixed purpose, is a bad one, and I would be glad to discourage them from it by making the term of service longer, so that the man who chooses the profession of arms shall go into the Army as a definite, permanent, chosen profession, and not merely for a short time. et them go into it for the nrpose of making themselves soldiers, with the purpose of rising by their merits from the ranks, if possible, to the highest positions in the Army. We must consider, also, the immense extent of this country; we have to send men 3 or 4000 miles away, to points which it takes 6 months to reach and 6 months to come back from, thus using up a year in going and coming. Then it takes one year to fitthem for duty, leaving, if you fix the term at 3 years, only one year for efficient service. I hope we shall not limit ourselves to that point. I know that there are advantages to the persons enlisted in such a system, and feel myself to be, in some sort, a brevet member of the ComMilAffrs. I would always rather work with its chairman than against him. I do not believe, however, that he makes much oint on this matter. I believe that by and by e will be better satisfied if we have a permanent army based on the 5 years principle, which has prevailed far more in the Government than the 3 years principle has done. We reduced the term of service to 3 years merely to meet the present necessities of the Government at a time when it was difficult to get men. We found it troublesome then to get enough men who were willing to go into the service for 5 years. But now, when we have men in abundance who are just as ready to enter the service for 5 years as for 3, it seems to me that we ought not to omit the opportunity to get an army for the full term of 12 years, and make it a great, solid, permanent body of men. I move the previous question on my amendment.