rarely more than half full in reference to privates. Three regiments carefully kept up full will, therefore, be equally efficient, and much less costly.

The yearly maintenance of cavalry is very costly-forage, &c., farriers, blacksmiths, death of horses-so that it will take time to have small bodies of this arm ready for use, and great vigilance and care to keep them in good order.

Section 2 changes the mounted rifles into a regiment of cavalry; from which fact it may be reasonably inferred that experience has not sustained the supposed efficiency of mounted riflemen.

Also, in this section, in order to furnish details for general staff duties, there are to be added for staff duties, to each regiment, four captains and four first lieutenants.

As there will be nineteen regiments by this bill, the addition for staff duties will be 76 captains and 76 first lieutenants, in all 152 officers, which I think will increase the staff much beyond its present organization-add much to its cost, but not to its efficiency.

The same section also provides for the increase of the cavalry from 64 to 100 privates, as the President may direct; the artillery the same; and each company of infantry may be increased 26 privates. The increase of non-commissioned officers proportional. But the increase herein authorized of privates will add

Therefore, at the pleasure of the Executive, the army can be enlarged by 5,640 privates, and consequent expenses.

It appears to me that so serious an increase in our army, by Executive will, is rather a new feature in our mode of military legislation, and will be of serious injury to the army, by making it more the creation of the Executive, and less the creation of law. The whole section appears to me rather indefinite, involving too much of the idea just above stated.

Moreover, this great addition of officers for staff duties is proof that officers are required for those duties. The choice is between a regular organization as now exists, and temporary details, and I am disposed to think that the cost of the plan as proposed will much exceed the one in being, and be far less efficient, because of the subdued qualifications and less devotion of the temporary details.

Section 3 adds to the corps of engineers 1 brigadier general, 1 colonel, 4 majors, 8 captains, 8 first lieutenants, and 8 second lieutenants; and from what follows, it leaves it to be supposed (but is not so directed) that these additions (except the brigadier generals) will be taken from the corps of topographical engineers, which is discontinued by this section, but such is not a direction of the bill; and as the bill is silent in reference to the period when it shall take effect, this period is supposed to be on the final passage of the bill into a law. According to this view, the word "discontinued" is equivalent to the word "disbanded." Also, the transfer to other corps is not made obliga

tory; and as it will require some time to consummate arrangements, there will, therefore, be a period when, according to my understanding of the bill, the corps of topographical engineers will be positively disbanded, without pay or employment.

This corps now consists (including brevet second lieutenant graduates) of 42 officers. If the number as named above are put into the corps of engineers, it will leave 13 for other regiments or corps.

Section 4. This section reduces the ordnance corps to 11 officers; it now consists (including graduates as second lieutenants) of 38; there will, therefore, be 27 of the officers of this corps to be transferred to other corps and regiments. It appears to me no more than just to suppose that this corps has not been raised to its present numbers, without reason, or without necessity and propriety. To suppose the spare numbers to be so transferred will be assigned to similar duties as those on which they are now engaged, is to suppose a labored legislation, merely to change names. An ordnance corps has been found necessary with the army organizations of all countries. I do not perceive how it can be dispensed with in ours, without serious injury to the public service, as now organized. It may be said that it is not dispensed with, but reduced; while it may be said of the corps of topographical engineers that it is dispensed with. But with both of these corps (taking it for granted that it is not the intention to disband either) no time is specified about the transfers, or as to what is to become of officers while these measures are being digested; it is therefore suggested that the following addition be affixed to the bill: "That the officers of the several corps and departments referred to in this law be retained in service, as now organized, until the several transfers, as directed and as authorized to other regiments and corps, shall have been made."

The phraseology of the bill in reference to these two corps is seriously different. In one case it positively directs the transfers to be made; in the other it leaves them in doubt. But in neither is there any provision for the time occupied in making and digesting the transfer arrangements.

Section 5 provides for nine brigadier generals; reduces the officers of the Commissary General, while it increases his duties in giving to his care the clothing department; and provides for one judge advocate. I do not comprehend this, as it is not possible for one judge advocate to attend to all the army general courts-martial. He should be a person of law knowledge, and be able to employ a deputy of law knowledge, if required, for each general court-martial.

Section 6. All commissioned officers to be appointed by the President and Senate, but appointments in the staff (as enumerated) to be appointed by the President. The staff, in its staff appointments, are not, then, commissioned officers. This section evidently contemplates a system of changes from staff to line duties, and from line to staff duties. I do not think such a system will work well. Either the duties of staff officers are excessively simple, (not a general impression,) or some time will be required in becoming acquainted with them. But the detail not being permanent, the officer so detailed foresees no advantage in it, (but mere matter of convenience) or induceRep. 40-3

ments to the study and devotion which staff duties require. While occupied on these he loses by disuse much of his line-duty knowledge, and goes back to the line a worse line-officer than when he left, and was no great staff officer when on that duty.

The present law authorizing commissions in the staff for certain parts, as enumerated, are repealed, and officers "now holding commissions in the staff shall be arranged to places in the army, regard as far as practicable being had to rank."

It seems to me that regard must be had to rank, or the officer will be reduced.

The section is long, complicated, and ambiguous; admitting, to my reading, of various interpretations.

Section 7. 1. "General officers shall be appointed by selection, the engineer brigadier general of engineers from the corps, and the ordnance colonel by selection from the corps.'

2. "In all other cases promotions shall be made by seniority to the grade of colonel, except in cases of disability or incompetency," and throughout the different arms of service.

66

3. Vacancies in the grade of major of ordnance shall be supplied by selection from the artillery."

The higher the professional grade, the greater the necessity of professional knowledge, because the more extensive the influence, and the evils of a want of that knowledge; therefore I think promotions and appointments to all grades of the army should be by seniority.

Moreover, the great evil under which the army suffers, and which is the most general subject of complaint, is the slowness of promotion. This evil would be much remedied and much reduced by promotion to all grades by seniority. One promotion from colonel to brigadier, promotes a lieutenant colonel, a major, a captain, a first lieutenant, a second lieutenant, and a brevet second lieutenant, which, with his own, makes seven promotions.

But promotions to the rank of colonel (according to arm of service) are to be by seniority, except in case of disability or incompetency. I think this exception highly proper. The defect (and I think it a serious defect) is in the absence of any authorized mode for ascertaining the "disability and incompetency."

The selections in the two cases of the engineers and the ordnance, it is supposed to be from an admitted necessity that officers of such elevated rank in these corps require professional knowledge. The requirement does not appear to me less necessary in other cases.

Majors of ordnance to be filled by selections from the artillery. This gives to the artillery the advantage of promotion into two corps. It also appears to me singularly unjust that an officer detached on a duty as a captain, no matter how well informed he may be, or how well acquainted with the duties of the corps, (unless of the artillery,) is forever debarred from promotion in the corps.

Section 8. I do not understand this section. The bill creates cavalry, artillery, and infantry. The arming and equipping of these several arms is a matter well understood, and has direct reference to the arm of service. But if they can be armed and equipped ad libitum, I see no use in these distinctive appellations, or in the change of the

mounted rifles to a regiment of cavalry, unless it be to preserve the names of the different arms in the form of legislation.

The entire law usually called the rules and articles of war, could be revised to advantage. A report of a revision was called for in 1832, but I am not aware that the report was made.

Section 9 repeals the 61st, 62d, and 63d articles of the law usually denominated the rules and articles of war. The 61st defines the power of brevets and former commissions."

This article (in the old law) appears to me clear, free from ambiguity, and easily understood. The only ambiguity is in the word "detachment;" which is, however, made clear by the regulations issued by President Jackson, revised and reissued by President Polk, and which, it is believed, are the governing regulations at this time. The chief trouble has arisen from claims for pay when exercising the brevet authority, and to decide when that pay could be drawn. This trouble could be removed by a simple expression of law, giving the pay, emoluments, and allowance of the brevet rank, to all officers when on brevet duty according to law, and in all cases of dispute the War Department to have power to decide the same.

Article 62 (old law) defines rights of command when different corps join or do duty together, "unless otherwise specially directed by the President of the United States, according to the nature of the case."

The law appears to me very clear in this case, and not adapted to create confusion; and the power given to the President is adequate to remedy and to prevent any confusion.

Article 63 is the one giving some exemptions from command to engineers.

The remedies proposed do not appear to me to simplify the case. Remedy 1st refers to Article 62. By this, staff officers (by old law) are excluded from such command; the remedy proposed does not exclude them; but I doubt if the remedy, in this single case, is desirable to the staff, or of advantage to the service.

The 2d remedy proposed destroys the brevet, to all intents and purposes, except on assignment by the President. The 63d is merely repealed; but the repeal will enable a commanding officer to order an engineer on any duty, and, in so doing, to take him from any work or existing duty.

Officers of the pay and medical departments cannot exercise command, except in his own department. This could always be done by seniority of commission. The confusion and difficulties now sought to be remedied, arise from having (within a few years) bestowed on officers of these departments military titles and military rank, totally unnecessary to their professional duties; but this error now makes the remedy proposed necessary.

Section 10 gives to officers and soldiers of this bill the benefit of the several pension laws, and makes them subject to the rules and articles of war: all, to my judgment, very proper and necessary.

Section 11 states the pay of different grades, in different arms of service. It would remove much discontent, rivalry, and jealousy, if the pay of all grades were the same for all arms of service; and,

under the liability of section 8, such a course has an appearance of justice.

A rigid equality in the pay of officers of the same grade can never be realized, because equality of condition, place, climate, and of necessary expenses consequent upon places, cannot be realized.

I do not know the officer who has been stationed at or near any of our large cities on the Atlantic, who has not experienced the fact that his pay and allowances do not support him. Officers on frontier stations have experienced a different result; therefore, whatever may be considered the comforts of Atlantic stations, they are more than compensated on the frontier by the avoiding of debt for the necessaries of life. A proviso reduces the allowances of officers when most needed. It extends the service ration to general officers, which is considered both just and proper.

The retired list, section 12. No matter by what name this arrangement is, denominated, it is. in fact, a pension system for aged and disabled officers, and to facilitate promotions by the making of quasi vacancies.

The greater part of section 12 is employed in describing the mode of placing officers on this list. The mode can be resorted to on the application of the officer, and at the judgment of the President of the United States. It appears to me that both of these methods relating to the mode are exceptionable, and adapted to depress the officer; and on these accounts will receive a reluctant attention. It would, perhaps, be better to affix an age at which all officers shall be placed on that list; and in all cases in which an officer is not promoted under the provision for "disability and incompetency."

It also appears to me just, that in all cases in which an officer is placed on the retired list, he should be advanced one grade, and should receive the pay, &c., according to section 13, of that advanced grade.

Section 13 merely provides for the pay, &c., of the officer so retired, and for promotion in his place.

Section 14. There seems to be no ground for objection to this sec

tion.

Section 15 merely provides for officers to be placed on the retired list during one year after the passage of this act.

It appears to me that this limitation defeats all the chief objects of a retired list. As age and its infirmities, disabilities, &c., will be in perpetual occurrence, it must be admitted that this list will be liable to diminution from deaths, therefore its perpetuity is not so offensive to

economy.

It is, I think, matter of regret that questions of the increase of the army, and of the increase of its pay-so generally admitted as necessary-should be coupled in this bill with so many other questions of rather doubtful utility,

Beviewing the whole bill, I am disposed to think that the inerease of the army-the increase of pay under existing staff organizationswill cost much less the year than the propositions of the bill.

There is an important principle, in military matters, for our coun