MR. PRESIDENT,--There is a principle of our institutions, to which reference is constantly made in this debate, which is worthy of constant memory. It is the subordination of the military to the civil power. Mr. Jefferson, in his Inaugural Address, so memorable as a representation of the fundamental principles of republican institutions, expressly declares the subordination of the military to the civil an essential element of a republic. I accept that idea; and I confess that I have always admired in our system that the Navy Department and the War Department each is in charge of a civilian; that neither a naval officer nor a military officer, in the ordinary course of affairs, takes his place at the head of either of these Departments, to the end that the Navy and the Army shall see in a civilian the visible head of each. In that I recognize the genius of the Republic. But now, Sir, for the application. I confess I agree entirely with the argument of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN]. I consider that the demands of republican institutions are completely satisfied, if we exclude men in active service from taking part in civil life. To go further is to tie the hands of the appointing power,--to take from the country the opportunity of securing, it may be, important service,--and, I think, is to be needlessly hard on men who in their day have rendered good service to the country. It does seem to me that cases may occur where it may be important to take into the civil service a retired officer. Why may not that occur in the natural course of events? There is talent, there is experience. Are our offices so well filled, is the public service so completely performed, that we can afford to exclude talent and experience? MR. CONKLING. Is not that much more true in regard to active officers? MR. SUMNER. There, Sir, you come in conflict with the fundamental principle of republican institutions. You cannot, as I submit, fill civil offices from the active service of the Army or Navy without conflict with that fundamental principle. MR. CONKLING. Why? MR. SUMNER. But I find no such conflict, if you take an officer on the retired list. MR. CONKLING. Will the Senator point out the distinction? MR. SUMNER. The Senator asks, “Why?” For the obvious reason, that, when the officer is on the retired list, he has, for all the ordinary purposes of the service, ceased to be an officer,--he enjoys what I think has been called a pension, which in reality is a pension under another name,--and he has ceased to be in the active, practical service either of Navy or of Army. On that account I see a clear distinction. Therefore it seems to me, for the sake of the public service, and that we may not be guilty of hardship to any portion of the community, that the words introduced by my colleague in the pending bill ought to be preserved. I hope they will not be struck out. The amendment prevailed,--Yeas 34, Nays 22. ARCTIC EXPEDITIONS.