Would M. Franklin please answer the following questions by a “yes” or “no”.

Does he believe that the United States can do without a regular standing army, once its status as an independent country is recognized?—Yes.

Would it not be better for them to have only national militias?—Certainly.

Would militias be less costly for the state or rather for the nation? Could one not argue that in a state of affairs where all citizens must be trained to bear arms, the result is a considerable waste of time and a greater expenditure to provide arms and uniforms and to gather troops at given times of the year, &c. than would be required to maintain a small number of regular troops?

[In English in the text:] Supposing a general militia to be equally expensive with a body of regular troops, yet the militia is preferable; because the whole being especially disciplined, has nothing to fear from a part.

Does M. Franklin believe that one can maintain troops ready for battle in each confederate state without endangering liberty?

[In English in the text:] Europe was without regular troops till lately. One powerful prince keeping an army always on foot makes it necessary for his neighbor to do the same to prevent surprise. We have no such dangerous neighbors in America. We shall probably keep magazines of arms and ammunition always filled, and no European power will ever find us so unprovided as England found us at the beginning of this war, or can prepare to invade us with a sufficient force in so short a time as not to give us time sufficient to discipline force sufficient to repel the invader.

[In English in the text:] Mr. F. therefore thinks, that to avoid not only the expense, but the danger of keeping up a body of regular troops in time of peace, none of the states separately will do it, nor the congress for the whole.