than those of justice and equality, many would present themselves appealing alike to the pride, the liberality, and the gratitude of the American people, to sustain a proposition which only seeks to relieve the military officers of a discrimination alike onerous and wounding.

It can require but little reflection to convince any one that a policy which confines so large a body of intelligent and instructed men to a rate of compensation below that given in the ordinary occupations of life, must tend to drive from the military service its more active and efficient officers. If, as I doubt not, there will be many honorable exceptions to this general proposition resulting from strong professional attachment to the army, they are exactly such exceptions as would claim increased consideration from every one who can estimate the patriotism and elevation which should characterize the officer to whom the honor and flag of his country are intrusted.

In the law of the last session of Congress to increase the pay of the rank and file of the army, the terms used to designate the grades of enlisted men are construed to exclude those of the Ordnance Department. As this exclusion is supposed to be accidental and unintentional, it is suggested that an explanatory act should be passed to extend the increase of pay to all enlisted men of the army. The pay of ordnance laborers and mechanics would still be much below the ordinary wages of such employments.

I would again call attention to the propriety of additional legislation which shall place the widows and orphans of the officers and soldiers of the army on an equality with those of the officers and sailors of the navy. The subject has been repeatedly recommended by the Commanding General of the army, and it is again brought to notice in his report of this

year.

In some important particulars our military legislation in regard to rank and command, as well as to organization, needs revision. In armies it is essential that it should be known, under all possible circumstances, who is the officer entitled to command. Doubt as to the source from which orders are to emanate is destructive of discipline and subordination, and might, on many occasions, compromise the safety of the troops. On this important point our military law is exceedingly vague and defective. Much of the mischief that otherwise would have resulted has been prevented by the care of the department in keeping asunder officers whose claims would come in conflict, and by the patriotic self-denial of the officers themselves, who, in many instances, have

waived claims to command which they believed to be wellfounded, and served under those whom they considered as their juniors. Nevertheless, many unseemly controversies have arisen, engendering jealousy, rancor, and insubordination; and the decisions in such cases, so far from putting at rest the questions involved, present a mass of conflicting arguments, from which no general principle can be educed, and which serve only to furnish to every disputant the means of maintaining his own cause. So numerous and contradictory have been the decisions of the highest authority on questions of rank, that no executive regulation or judgment of a courtmartial could now establish any certain rule, or fix the interpretation of the law; for either of these would be met by as high authority for a contrary doctrine, and would probably be in turn overruled. Congress only can apply the remedy; and whatever rule they may, in their wisdom, adopt, should be simple in its terms, and universal in its application.

One fruitful source of difficulty arises from double rank. In our service, as in the English, an officer may have one grade by brevet in the army, or at large, and another in a particular regiment or corps. The law has attempted to define the cases in which one or the other of these commissions shall take effect, and it is to the defective and insufficient manner in which this is done that much of the confusion above alluded to is due. The statutory provision on the subject is copied from the English. Even in their service it has proved a source of much trouble, and, as in ours, there is a class of commissions not known to theirs-commissions in the army at large, not by brevet. The interpretation of the law is further embarrassed by the necessity of applying it to a class of cases for which it was not intended.

To remove this cause of difficulty, some have proposed to abolish brevet rank altogether, but there are many stronger reasons against this course. Brevet rank affords an honorable incentive and reward to distinguished conduct, and enables the government to avail itself of the services and abilities of meritorious officers in higher commands than they would be entitled to exercise by their ordinary rank. It is true, indeed, that these arguments lose much of their force and application, if the sytem of brevet promotion is not discreetly and justly administered, and that the system itself produces a shifting of rank dangerous to discipline and military authority. The main benefit of the system is in affording selections for command, but the present law gives brevet rank effect in all detachments composed of different corps,

and selection is as much restrained by this rule in favor of brevet rank as by the rule in favor of ordinary commissions. To avoid the evils without forfeiting the benefits of the system, it is proposed to give effect to brevet rank only when the President may see fit to authorize it. As these commissions are designed only to take occasional effect, there seems to be a propriety in requiring his sanction, either direct or delegated, as constitutional commander-in-chief of the army, to give them effect. A further limitation, however, should be put on them. As they are not intended, and ought not to be allowed, to advance an officer in his own corps over his proper seniors, the exercise of them ought to be forbidden, as it now is, in the regiment, troop, or company where the officer belongs and is mustered.

A difficulty of still greater magnitude is found in the enactments intended to regulate rank and command when different regiments and corps do duty together. The general provision is, that the command shall devolve upon the officer highest in rank "in the line of the army;" but these words were new in that connexion, and of undefined signification, and it cannot be determined whether they were intended to include officers holding commissions by brevet in the staff or in certain special corps. The interpretation that has prevailed in our service is, that they do not embrace any officers of the general staff except the major-general and the two brigadier-generals; but this is not acquiesced in by many, and the question is still productive of frequent controversy, attended with all the evils which have been above enumerated.

I find much difficulty in proposing any general rule to govern, in this particular, such a military organization as ours. It is clearly improper to exclude from command, according to their rank, the officers of the military staff, whose duties are as important to the service as any other class of military duties below the chief command, and require equal general capacity, professional skill and experience. This would, in effect, convert the military staff, so essential to an army, into a quasi civil corps. On the other hand, officers whose duties, being confined to a special corps, remove them from the ordinary service of troops, ought not to take, by seniority, the military command for which their special service has not qualified them.

This remark does not, indeed, now apply to all officers of the staff corps, in the higher grades of which are found many officers who, having long served with troops, and won distinction in battle, were transferred to the places they now

hold. But the principle of promotion has since been applied to these corps, and, under its operation, their places must ultimately be filled by officers early separated from the general service, and thenceforth confined to a round of special duties. These difficulties can be obviated only by a change in the organization of the general staff itself; and I propose it with less reluctance, as I share the conviction entertained by officers of experience, that the organization is not well calculated for the duties of the staff itself. And I think that not only the efficiency of the staff, but the general good of the whole military service, would be promoted by some essential changes which I shall proceed to submit to your consideration.

Our military general staff, besides the major-general and the two brigadier-generals, who are habitually in command of troops, is composed of an Adjutant General's Department, Inspector General's, a Quartermaster General's Department, and a Commissariat of Subsistence. The officers of these departments, all of whom have military rank, form so many corps distinct from the rest of the army, with promotion confined to their own corps. The embarrassments in regard to rank and command, resulting from this arrangement, have been stated. But worse evils result from it in the ordinary staff service. In the first place, most of these staff duties require military knowledge, only to be derived from general service and experience. In the second place, from various causes and accidents, errors may be made in the first selection; either the officers selected may not be qualified, or they may become disqualified for their special functions, and yet be fit for the general service. These are evils which the government should, at all times, be allowed the means of correcting. A good staff is so essential to army operations that it is important to secure its constant efficiency. There are, to my mind, conclusive reasons why the staff should not be organized into permanent corps, and experience in the administration of the War Department has furnished many practical proofs of them. If the duties of the staff were performed by officers holding temporary appointments for such service, all the benefits might be secured of a large field of selection, at all times open, of general experience in the service, and of special qualifications for staff duties. The principal officers found particularly qualified for their special duties would naturally be retained. Those who might not be useful on the staff would be replaced in their regiments. Either class not having been confined always to a staff corps would be qualified for such military duty or command as the

course of service, according to their rank, might devolve upon them.

It has been stated that our organization is peculiar. A brief reference to some of the European systems may aid in illustrating the views hereinafter submitted of a well-organized staff.

The French staff is divided into two branches-a military and a civil. The military has charge of all that relates to orders, movements, and military operations; the civil furnishes all the supplies of the army.

The officers who furnish the supplies have no rank. The military staff have rank, and succeed ordinarily to command by virtue of it. This military staff is composed of two classes of officers; the highest positions in it are filled by selection from the general officers of the army, so as to secure the best capacity and experience, in the service. For the subordinate and more routine duties they have a special corps; but the functions of this corps are of much importance, and to supply it with fit officers, they have provided a special military school, and a complete system of instruction in all its duties.

This system is simple, with many obvious merits. It brings all the military staff into one line and under one head. It secures the double benefit of experience in the general service, and in the special duties of the corps. But it is a system only practicable in a large army. The permanent corps must be such as to afford a sufficient field of promotion. A small establishment does not allow of both selections and permanent appointments. Nor is the separate school and corps for the staff needed in our army, in which a large proportion of the officers are prepared for such duties by the complete course of studies at our Military Academy. This is an advantage which our service has over those services where the size of armies does not permit the education of officers by government except for those corps in which it is indispensable, and has attracted the attention of foreign officers and writers.

Instead of one corps to which all the military staff business is assigned, the English army has two principal military staff departments-the Adjutant General's and the Quartermaster General's. The chief officers of these are generals of the army, appointed temporarily on the staff; the inferior are appointed, in like manner, from the regiments. Neither class gain rank by these appointments.

The Adjutant General's is the department of military orders and regulations of the recruiting of the army, and of all