Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

officers. With the present organization it seems to us very difficult to make a proper general rule to govern in this matter. We shall revert to this point in considering the subsequent clause of the bill which prescribes rules to regulate rank and command. In regard, however, to the proposed organization, we here state our opinion that a law organizing the army staff upon the principles propounded in the Secretary's report, and administered upon them, would be of advantage to the public service. But, as in all legislation which relies on executive discretion, the benefits of the law will depend on its administration. A continuing power of appointment and removal of staff officers may expose the military service to the influences which control appointments and the tenure of office in the civil service of the

government.

The Senate bill is well framed in its details to effect the staff organization proposed by the Secretary of War. The House bill differs from it, in a material part, in the mode of providing officers for staff duties. For this purpose the House bill proposes four supernumerary captains to each regiment, or seventy-six in all, while all appointments on the staff eligible from the rank of captain, and above that rank, are only twenty-four. The supernumerary captains not appointed on the staff would have no proper employment or position in the army. We think that the Senate bill proposes the proper plan. It gives to companies of cavalry and infantry two 1st lieutenants, as the artillery companies now have. This will afford officers enough for staff details, and all regimental officers not detailed on the staff will have their appropriate regimental service.

In the proposed organization the judge advocate is considered as part of the military staff. We suppose that office to belong rather to the civil staff. But this point is not of importance.

The other changes proposed in the army organization, relate to the artillery, the engineers, and the ordnance.

In regard to the artillery the bills differ. The Senate bill follows the Executive recommendation to reduce the artillery to near one-half its present strength, and convert the other half into infantry. The House bill leaves the artillery of the strength it now is. The report of the War Department states that a large part of the present artillery regiments will, in future, serve as infantry-as they are now serving. This fact seems to us proof that the present artillery organization is excessive. The organization of an army should conform to the wants of the service, and the actual and necessary employment of the troops. Both bills propose, as recommended by the department, to increase the corps of engineers, and discontinue the separate organization of the corps of topographical engineers. These corps are now nearly of the same strength. Their military employments are of very different importance and magnitude. Of all nations, the United States have the most extensive maritime frontier to defend by fortifications. This work alone, the indispensable fortifications on the seacoast and inland frontiers, would employ actively a much larger corps of engineers than these bills propose. In regard to the military topographical duties of the other corps, these services are, as represented in the report of the War Department, only a part of the duties of engineers;

and, for the reasons stated by the department, it does not seem to us necessary or expedient to retain the separate organization of the topographical corps. In this opinion we have reference only to the military duties of topographical engineers. The use of such a corps to the United States for civil works of survey or construction, is not a military question. The largest and most important of these works, the coast survey, is now under the direction of a civil officer.

The bills propose to transfer the officers of the corps of topographical engineers "to the engineer corps, or other corps, or regiments, as the President may see fit." We discover no objection to this provision. In regard to their transfer to the engineer corps, it has been stated that the higher duties of that corps are of such magnitude and difficulty, that they demand a long course of special study and experience; implying, as they do, the competency to plan and construct fortifications of the first class, and to direct the operations of armies in the attack and defence of fortified places. We presume that there are officers of the topographical corps qualified for these high and difficult employments. We profess, however, not to be competent to judge of this question. But we observe that the bills seem to be cautiously drawn in this particular. They direct the additions to the engineer corps to be made "as the exigencies of the service may require;" and the transfer of topographical engineers to be made into such corps as the President may see fit.

The change of organization of the ordnance department, which both bills propose, seems to us a proper measure. The reasons of it are stated in the report of the Secretary of War. The House bill, in section seven, peovides that majors of ordnance shall be appointed only from the artillery. We think the restriction injudicious. The Senate bill made engineers also eligible to these appointments, and we think it important to preserve that provision. The knowledge of an engineer will find useful application in the ordnance corps. That service in our army has had experience of the benefit of an appointment from the corps of engineers. In its other provisions the 7th section of the bill seems to us the proper and necessary law of military promotion, ordinarily by seniority, with express exception in case of disability or incompetency; but the heads of certain corps, and all general officers, as at present, by selection.

The rules to regulate rank and command in the 9th section are among the most important subjects of the bill. The defects of the existing law, in this part of our military regulations, are fully discussed in the report of the War Department; and it appears quite unnecessary to attempt any exposition of them here. With the existing organization there is difficulty in prescribing a rule to regulate the right of officers of the disbursing and supplying staff to exercise military command; whether to confer military command on officers whose special duties are distinct from command, and may have long separated them from the military service of troops, or in respect of the exercise of military command, to consider these branches of the military staff as a civil corps. This embarrassment, however, is obviated in the organization proposed in the bill; and, in connexion with this organization, the rules to regulate rank and command, of the Senate

bill, seem to us correct and judicious. Some changes from these rules are made in the House bill. They seem to us not advisable. They are three in all. The first is in the 7th and 8th lines of section 10, in the reference to the 98th article of war. This reference appears unnecessary, if meant to guard against a repeal of that article, and to secure its operation in the cases it refers to; and improper if meant to forbid, in those cases, the operation of the rules now proposed. The next objection we find to this section of the House bill is in the 19th and 20th lines, providing that brevet assignments shall not take effect over senior brevets. This may defeat the object of assignments; and we see no reason why an officer may not be assigned over a senior brevet, (which is only a qualified, and ordinarily only a titular rank,) if he may be assigned over his habitual senior by proper military rank.

The 224, 23d, 24th, and 25th lines of the same section, that medical and pay officers shall not be commanded by non-commissioned officers, or by any officer but the commander of the troops, &c., make a provision which appears to us improper.

The words "disease contracted in the line of duty," in the 18th line of the 11th section, will probably be construed to cover all cases of ill health.

The words "horse-artillery batteries," in the 15th line of the same section, are perhaps an error in the use of technical language. All batteries of field artillery with horses, whether technically "horse artillery" or "foot artillery," were probably intended to have cavalry allowances, and that appears to be the law now.

Respectfully, your obedient servants,

Hon. C. J. FAULKNER, Chairman, &c.

S. COOPER,
Adjutant General.
J. F. LEE,
Judge Advocate.

SURGEON GENERAL'S OFFICE, January 20, 1855. SIR: The wish of the Committee on Military Affairs of the House of Representatives, that I should "make a full and careful examination of the provisions of the bill for the increase and better organization of the army, and for other purposes," and "give an expression of my views in writing relative thereto," was communicated to me on yesterday from the Department of War.

In obedience to the authority given, I have critically examined the provisions of the bill, and shall now proceed to set forth, as requested, my views thereupon.

The first section of the bill is in the following words: "That there shall be added to the army two regiments of infantry and two regiments of cavalry, organized as in the existing force, with such modifications as provided in this act."

To this provision of the bill I can present no objection; on the contrary, I am free to say, that a greater accession to the strength of our

military force proper will be required to meet the exigencies of the service in Texas, New Mexico, California, and Oregon, for years to

come.

The second section provides "that the present regiments of dragoons and mounted riflemen shall be hereafter styled regiments of cavalry, and that, in order to furnish details for general staff duties, there shall be added to each regiment of artillery, infantry, and cavalry, four captains and four first lieutenants; each company of cavalry shall consist of one captain, one first lieutenant, one second lieutenant, five sergeants, and from six to ten corporals, (one as quartermaster corporal, and one as saddler corporal,) two musicians, two farriers, and from sixty-four to one hundred privates, as the President may direct; that each company of artillery shall remain organized as at present, with the addition of one or three sergeants, the addition of one or three corporals, the addition of two or four artificers, and the addition of from the present number of privates up to one hundred, as the President may direct; and that each company of infantry shall remain organized, as at present, with the addition of one sergeant, four corporals, and twenty-six privates, as the President may direct."

As the present regiments of dragoons and mounted riflemen, as well as the new cavalry corps proposed, will most probably all be armed and equipped in the same manner-that is, with the Minie rifle, &c., &c.-there seems to be propriety in calling them all cavalry. Nor can I present any objection to the increase of the number of privates in the companies of the several regiments of cavalry, artillery, and infantry, although I am not prepared to approve of the very great addition proposed to the present number of non-commissioned officers of those several regiments. I am decidedly opposed, however, to the projét of having four supernumerary captains engrafted upon each organized regiment for the purpose of furnishing details for general staff duties, &c., &c.

Under this provision there would be seventy-six captains hanging loosely upon the skirts of the corps for armed service, ready to take upon themselves all the temporary staff duties, with the pay and emoluments of majors. In my opinion there should be but one colonel commanding a regiment, and but one captain to each company of that regiment.

The details for the higher order of staff duties should be made from among the junior field officers of a regiment, and for the duties of an inferior grade of staff officer let the subaltern officer of companies be detailed.

To provide, then, for the discharge of the duties of staff officers, I should prefer that there be added to each company of cavalry and infantry one first lieutenant, making two first lieutenants to each company, the same as now obtains in the regiments of artillery.

The 3d section of the bill provides, "that there shall be added to the corps of engineers, as the exigencies of the public service may require, one brigadier general, one colonel, four majors, eight captains, eight first lieutenants, and eight second lieutenants, and a company of engineer soldiers, organized as now provided by law; and that the

corps of topographical engineers shall be discontinued, and the officers of that corps transferred to the corps of engineers, or other corps or regiments, as the President sees fit."

The requirements of the service in my opinion do not, at this time, call for the additional number of officers to the engineer corps, whether of high or low degree, which is proposed; nor do I believe they ever will be needed; still, as other and better soldiers think otherwise, I shall not positively object to the proposition.

I am decidedly opposed, however, to the annihilation of the corps of topographical engineers, to build up the corps of engineers.

There are highly gifted men and highly educated men in each corps; they are all prepared by their education at West Point for service in either of those corps, and in all the corps of the army. The officers of these corps are also equally distinguished for their service on the field of battle; then why should the officers of the one corpsthe bad, if there are any, as well as the good-be retained, while the good, as well as the bad, of the other corps, are given to the four winds of heaven?

There is no doubt that both of these corps have been swelled by partial legislation, from time to time, to an inordinate size; but whether the one or the other is the least useful or the least to be cherished by the nation, is yet to be determined.

We have, I believe, a very full knowledge of our seacoast, and we have batteries at every point heretofore considered as most exposed and important to be defended; while we lack information respecting the interior of our country. It is my opinion, therefore, that the services of the topographical engineers, in exploring the interior of our country from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean, and developing its natural resources, (as has been exhibited in the recent surveys for a railroad to the Pacific,) are of more immediate national importance than the selection of sites for fortifications, and the erection of batteries on our seacoast, which may never be required.

I am, as you may perceive, opposed to studding our seacoast with fortifications by way of ornament; to expending millions of noney in erecting forts at points where there can be no inducement for an enemy to go, and who would not, if he could, occupy the country to be defended. Again, fortifications, however strong, can in a given time be reduced; temporary batteries and other ordinary defences can be turned; but living men with stout hearts cannot be passed. To prevent the immediate rush of a fleet of vessels into a harbor for the purpose simply of plunder or the destruction of a town, I think that sunken hulks in the channel of the river will have all the effect of a fixed battery on shore.

In a war with any foreign power, the sooner matters are brought to an issue the better; all we want is an open field and a fair fight.

With our means of transportation by railroad, steamboats, and other conveyances, we can bring to any point where the enemy may land, from five to ten men against one of any invading force; and if we cannot with that numerical superiority prevail over the foe, we deserve to be vanquished.

My opinion is, that instead of annihilating the one corps to enlarge

« AnteriorContinua »