MILITARY DEPARTMENT: PROGRESS OF ITS EXPENSE.
There is no part of the working of the government, at which that
part of the citizens who live upon their own industry should look
more closely, than into its expenditures. The progress of expense
in every branch of the public service should be their constant
care; and for that purpose retrospective views are necessary, and
comparisons between different periods. A preceding chapter has given
some view of this progress and comparison in the Navy Department:
the present one will make the same retrospect with respect to the
army, and on the same principles--that of taking the aggregate
expense of the department, and then seeing the effective force
produced, and the detailed cost of such force. Such comparative
view was well brought up by Mr. Calhoun for a period of twenty
years--1822 to 1842--in the debate on the naval appropriations; and
it furnishes instructive data for this examination. He said:
"I shall now pass to the military, with which I am more
familiar. I propose to confine my remarks almost entirely to
the army proper, including the Military Academy, in reference
to which the information is more full and minute. I exclude
the expenses incident to the Florida war, and the expenditures
for the ordnance, the engineer, the topographical, the Indian,
and the pension bureaus. Instead of 1823, for which there is
no official and exact statement of the expenses of the army,
I shall take 1821, for which there is one made by myself, as
Secretary of War, and for the minute correctness of which, I
can vouch. It is contained in a report made under a call of the
House of Representatives, and comprises a comparative statement
of the expenses of the army proper, for the years 1818, '19,
'20, and '21, respectively, and an estimate of the expense of
1823. It may be proper to add, which I can with confidence, that
the comparative expense of 1823, if it could be ascertained,
would be found to be not less favorable than 1821. It would
probably be something more so.
"With these remarks, I shall begin with a comparison, in the
first place, between 1821 and the estimate for the army proper
for this year. The average aggregate strength of the army in
the year 1821, including officers, professors, cadets, and
soldiers, was 8,109, and the proportion of officers, including
the professors of the Military Academy, to the soldiers,
including cadets, was 1 to 12 18-100, and the expenditure
$2,180,093 53, equal to $263 91 for each individual. The
estimate for the army proper for 1842, including the Military
Academy, is $4,453,370 16. The actual strength of the army,
according to the return accompanying the message at the opening
of the session, was 11,169. Assuming this to be the average
strength for this year, and adding for the average number of the
Academy, professors and cadets, 300, it will give within a very
small fraction $390 for each individual, making a difference
of $136 in favor of 1821. How far the increase of pay, and the
additional expense of two regiments of dragoons, compared to
other descriptions of troops, would justify this increase, I
am not prepared to say. In other respects, I should suppose,
there ought to be a decrease rather than an increase, as the
prices of clothing, provisions, forage, and other articles of
supply, as well as transportation, are, I presume, cheaper than
in 1821. The proportion of officers to soldiers I would suppose
to be less in 1842, than in 1821, and of course, as far as that
has influence, the expense of the former ought to be less per
man than the latter. With this brief and imperfect comparison
between the expense of 1821 and the estimates for this year,
I shall proceed to a more minute and full comparison between
the former and the year 1837. I select that year, because the
strength of the army, and the proportion of officers to men (a
very material point as it relates to the expenditure) are almost
exactly the same.
"On turning to document 165 (H. R., 2d sess., 26th Con.),
a letter will be found from the then Secretary of War (Mr.
Poinsett) giving a comparative statement, in detail, of the
expense of the army proper, including the Military Academy,
for the years 1837, '38, '39 and '40. The strength of the army
for the first of these years, including officers, professors,
cadets, and soldiers, was 8,107, being two less than in 1821.
The proportion of officers and professors, to the cadets
and soldiers, 11 46-100, being 72-100 more than 1821. The
expenditure for 1837, $3,308,011, being $1,127,918 more than
1821. The cost per man, including officers, professors, cadets,
and soldiers, was in 1837 $408 03, exceeding that of 1821 by
$144 12 per man. It appears by the letter of the Secretary,
that the expense per man rose in 1838 to $464 35; but it is
due to the head of the department, at the time, to say, that
it declined under his administration, the next year, to $381
65; and in the subsequent, to $380 63. There is no statement
for the year 1841; but as there has been a falling off in
prices, there ought to be a proportionate reduction in the cost,
especially during the present year, when there is a prospect of
so great a decline in almost every article which enters into the
consumption of the army. Assuming that the average strength
of the army will be kept equal to the return accompanying the
President's message, and that the expenditure of the year
should be reduced to the standard of 1821, the expense of the
army would not exceed $2,895,686, making a difference, compared
with the estimates, of $1,557,684; but that, from the increase
of pay, and the greater expense of the dragoons, cannot be
expected. Having no certain information how much the expenses
are necessarily increased from those causes, I am not prepared
to say what ought to be the actual reductions; but, unless the
increase of pay, and the increased cost because of the dragoons
are very great, it ought to be very considerable.
"I found the expense of the army in 1818, including the
Military Academy, to be $3,702,495, at a cost of $451 57 per
man, including officers, professors, cadets, and soldiers, and
reduced it in 1821 to $2,180,098, at a cost of $263 91; and
making a difference between the two years, in the aggregate
expenses of the army, of $1,522,397, and $185 66 per man. There
was, it is true, a great fall in prices in the interval; but
allowing for that, by adding to the price of every article
entering into the supplies of the army, a sum sufficient to
raise it to the price of 1818, there was still a difference in
the cost per man of $163 95. This great reduction was effected
without stinting the service or diminishing the supplies, either
in quantity or quality. They were, on the contrary, increased
in both, especially the latter. It was effected through an
efficient organization of the staff, and the co-operation of
the able officers placed at the head of each of its divisions.
The cause of the great expense at the former period, was found
to be principally in the neglect of public property, and the
application of it to uses not warranted by law. There is less
scope, doubtless, for reformation in the army now. I cannot
doubt, however, but that the universal extravagance which
pervaded the country for so many years, and which increased so
greatly the expenses both of government and individuals, has
left much room for reform in this, as well as other branches of
the service."
This is an instructive period at which to look. In the year 1821,
when Mr. Calhoun was Secretary at War, the cost of each man in
the military service (officers and cadets included) was, in round
numbers, 264 dollars per man: in the year 1839, when Mr. Poinsett
was Secretary, and the Florida war on hand, the cost per man was
380 dollars: in the year 1842, the second year of Mr. Tyler's
administration, the Florida war still continuing, it was 390 dollars
per man: now, in 1855, it is about 1,000 dollars a man. Thus, the
cost of each man in the army has increased near three fold in the
short space of about one dozen years. The same result will be
shown by taking the view of these increased expenses in a different
form--that of aggregates of men and of cost. Thus, the aggregate
of the army in 1821 was 8,109 men, and the expense was $2,180,093:
in 1839 the aggregate of the army was about 8,000 men--the cost
$3,308,000: in 1842 the return of the army was 11,169--the
appropriation asked for, and obtained $4,453,370. Now, 1854, the
aggregate of the army is 10,342--the appropriations ten millions and
three quarters! that is to say, with nearly one thousand men less
than in 1842, the cost is upwards of six millions more. Such is the
progress of waste and extravagance in the army--fully keeping up
with that in the navy.
In a debate upon retrenchment at this session, Mr. Adams proposed to
apply the pruning knife at the right place--the army and navy: he
did not include the civil and diplomatic, which gave no sign at that
time of attaining its present enormous proportions, and confined
himself to the naval and military expenditure. After ridiculing the
picayune attempts at retrenchment by piddling at stationery and
tape, and messengers' pay, he pointed to the army and navy; and said:
"There you may retrench millions! in the expenses of Congress,
you retrench picayunes. You never will retrench for the benefit
of the people of this country, till you retrench the army and
navy twenty millions. And yet he had heard of bringing down the
expenditures of the government to twenty millions. Was this
great retrenchment to be effected by cutting off the paper of
members, by reducing the number of pages, and cutting down the
salaries of the door-keepers? How much could be retrenched in
that way? If there was to be any real retrenchment, it must
be in the army and navy. A sincere and honest determination
to reduce the expenses of the government, was the spirit of a
very large portion of the two parties in the House; and that
was a spirit in which the democracy had more merit than the
other party. He came here as an humble follower of those who
went for retrenchment; and, so help him God, so long as he kept
his seat here, he would continue to urge retrenchment in the
expenditures of the military and naval force. Well, what was the
corresponding action of the Executive on this subject? It was a
recommendation to increase the expenditures both for the army
and navy. They had estimates from the War and Navy Departments
of twenty millions. The additions proposed to the armed force,
as he observed yesterday, fifteen millions would not provide
for. Where was the spirit of retrenchment on the part of the
Executive, which Congress had a right to expect? How had he
met the spirit manifested by Congress for retrenchment of the
expenditures of the government? By words--words--and nothing
else but words."
A retrenchment, to be effectual, requires the President to
take the lead, as Mr. Jefferson did at the commencement of his
administration. A solitary member, or even several members acting
together, could do but little: but they should not on that account
forbear to "_cry aloud and spare not_." Their voice may wake up the
people, and lead to the election of a President who will be on the
side of republican economy, instead of royal extravagance. This
writer is not certain that 20 millions, on these two heads, could
have been retrenched at the time Mr. Adams spoke; but he is sure of
it now.