MR. SUMNER. My friend will pardon me,--for education. He is against making this paltry appropriation for education; and he reminds us that in his great State $3,000,000 are set apart for this purpose. Is it not shameful, that, while $3,000,000 are set apart for this purpose in his great State, so small a sum as is now proposed is to be set apart by the Nation? Am I told that the Nation has nothing to do with this question? Allow me to reply at once, it has everything to do with it; it has more to do with it than the State of Ohio, inasmuch as in the Nation are all the States. Ohio is only one State; all the States compose the Nation; and the Nation is responsible for the civilization of all the States. The Nation is the presiding genius, not only of Ohio, but of all the associate States of the Union. Therefore, Sir, should the Nation by every means in its power, by appropriation, by a department, by a bureau, by clerks, by officers, do everything possible to promote the interests of education. But the question may be asked, What can it do? With the sum proposed, unhappily, very little,--too little. But let us not give up doing even that little. A little in such a cause is much. If nothing else, information may be accumulated, statistics may be gathered, facts may be brought together, which can be laid before those interested in education all over our own country and in foreign lands. That may be a specific object of the Bureau of Education. Then, again, it may supply a general impulse to education in every State,--even in Ohio, with its $3,000,000 appropriated to that purpose. Permit me to say, the State of Ohio, great as it is, is not yet above the reach of educational influences; and I am sure that this Bureau, if properly organized, might be of advantage even to the great State which my friend represents with so much ability on this floor. I therefore adopt the language of my friend, when he said, “Let us take no backward step.” I would increase this appropriation, rather than diminish it. I wish it were $100,000,--ay, Sir, $500,000. The amendment was rejected,--Yeas 19, Nays 38. NO EXCLUSION OF RETIRED ARMY OFFICERS FROM CIVIL OFFICE. REMARKS IN THE SENATE, MAY 12, 1870. The Senate having under consideration a bill for the reduction of the Army, reported by Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, from the Committee on Military Affairs, as a substitute for one from the House, and the pending question being on an amendment by Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, restoring to its original form in the House bill the provision “That it shall not be lawful for any officer of the Army of the United States on the active list to hold any civil office,” by striking out the words “on the active list,” Mr. Sumner said:--