Question. Do you think that any portion of the artillery could be spared?

Answer. The artillery is on the sea-coast and is not needed immediately; and possibly there might be some reduction in the artillery.

Question. Ordinarily how many men can take care of one of those sea-coast fortifications, to preserve it from decay and from destruction by the elements, or from marauders and intruders ?

Answer. One or two companies are sufficient for that.

Question. Could not a squad of ten or fifteen men under a sergeant attend to it?

Answer. Yes; a squad could do so.

Question. How much of the work of keeping in repair and preventing destruction by the elements is done by the soldiers who occupy these posts?

Answer. Very little. The Engineer Department keeps the fortifications in repair.

Question. Do they hire civilians for that purpose?

Answer. I presume that when damages to fortifications occur they hire hands. No work on any of the permanent fortifications is done by soldiers.

Question. I see that in the Department of the East there are 1,826 soldiers. In view of the works to be occupied there and of the frontier to be guarded, and in view of the absence of hostile forces in the neighborhood, do you think that 1,826 soldiers are necessary?

Auswer. No, sir. If there were trouble in Florida or Texas to-morrow, the soldiers could be withdrawn from the Department of the East and sent there. I believe the engineers would rather not have soldiers in the fortifications.

Question. Aside from the engineer force that is required to keep forts in repair and to protect them from damage by intruders, can the military force now in those forts be dispensed with?

Answer. Yes; I think so.

Question. I see that in the Department of the Lakes there are 2,470 soldiers. State whether there is any military necessity to have those soldiers there.

Answer. There is only one post on the lakes that I know of which it is necessary at the present time to keep for military reasons. That is the post at the Sault Saint Marie. It is necessary in order to protect the canal, which would be liable to be depredated upon by vicious people. That is the only post in the Department of the Lakes where I suppose troops to be necessary, except with a view of keeping a police force on the Canadian frontier. That is a question of civil politics, and not one for military consideration.

Question. You say, then, that you have no information as to the necessity of keeping a police force there?

Answer. I know nothing about that question.

Question. I see that by the last report of the Adjutant General there were 3,223 soldiers in the Department of the Gulf, and 2,192 in the Department of the South. Is there any military necessity at present for the presence of troops in that region?

Answer. There is no military necessity for it that I am aware of. I think the troops are kept there rather from political considerations. I mean that they are there to be used as a restraint in case political difficulties should arise. I perhaps ought to except the sea-coast fortifications, such as Key West, Tortugas, Pensacola, and Fort Monroethose fortifications that are occupied as against foreign enemies.

Question. Then your answer would apply to the troops that are stationed in the interior rather than to those on the sea-coast.

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Coming then to the sea-coast, can you make an estimate of what the smallest force would be that would be necessary for the occupation of those forts?

Answer. I suppose that, with the exception of Key West, Tortugas, and New Orleans, the garrisons might be withdrawn from all of those forts for the time being, leaving simply the ordinary fort-keepers that the Engineer Department would put there.

Question. In view of the disturbances that have occurred in Louisiana, and the unsettled state of affairs and the possibility of future disturbances there, would not some military force be necessary at New Orleans as a police force?

Answer. My own impression has been, when living at a distance from that region, that all the troops might be withdrawn from the South; but when I have been there I have met with many very intelligent people who claimed that the presence of the troops there is necessary. There is a difference of opinion about it among statesmen and civilians, rather than among soldiers. The soldiers remain in the country, and do not know whether there is any necessity for them or not until they are called upon by the civil authorities to act, and then they simply perform their duty.

Question. If the Army is to be diminished, in what branches or departments can that reduction be made with the least detriment to the country and the service?

Answer. In my judgment it ought to begin with cutting down some portions of the infantry regiments. Next to them, if we were to have further reductions, it ought to be in the artillery.

Question. What have you to say as to the reduction of the engineer battalion stationed at Willet's Point and West Point?

Answer. The company at West Point is, I think, useful. I have never seen the other companies of the battalion, and do not know what duties they are employed upon. I have seen it stated that one of their duties, that of manufacturing and using torpedoes, is an important one; but beyond that I cannot see any necessity for those troops whatever.

Question. State whether or not it would be better to reduce the Army by organizations or by diminishing the number of men by stopping recruiting?

Answer. If the Army were my own private property, and I was compelled to reduce it, I would cut off one or two organizations, although I think it would be very hard on the officers of those organizations, and that some provision ought to be made for them.

Question. State whether or not, in view of the large annual diminution of the number of officers, (83 in the last year,) the number of organizations might not be decreased without detriment even to the of ficers themselves who are in the service.

Answer. I do not think a single regiment could be cut off without detriment to many of the officers, but I believe that the fairest way to do it would be to take the officers of a regiment that is mustered out and distribute them among the regiments that are maintained, and let them be absorbed gradually.

Question Could this be done without reducing the rank of these officers?

Answer. Yes, sir. For instance, if you cut off one regiment of in

fantry, I would distribute all the captains of that regiment among other regiments as supernumerary captains; and so with the lieutenants. There will always be duty for them to perform, and as vacancies occur, they would be taken up. If a regiment is cut off, I think it only fair that its officers should be distributed among other regiments as supernumeraries.

Question. Would there be any difficulty in that?

Auswer. I think not.

Question. Are there any branches of the staff which may be diminished in number or consolidated with others?

Answer. In the testimony which I gave to the military committee last year, I favored the consolidation of the supply departments into one department, and also of the Adjutant-General's Department, the Inspector-General's Department, the Signal-Service, and others into another department. I was in favor of that, but there is a great diversity of opinion on the subject in the Army.

Question. Taking the organization as it is, can you suggest any plan by which the present number of staff officers can be advantageously diminished? If so, state in what branches of the staff.

Answer. I would have to consider each branch of the service separately. Beginning with the Adjutant General's Department, we see where all the officers of the department are usefully employed, and we see that there are still places vacant for assistant adjutants-general, and the Adjutant-General has no officers to assign. He says that he has not now enough of officers. There are two or three or four vacancies now in that department of the staff.

Question. State whether or not the adjutants of regiments can be dispensed with-whether a detail cannot be made from officers of the line to act as adjutants of regiments?

Answer. That was formerly the case. Some years ago the adjutant of a regiment was a lieutenant in the regiment, who was detailed for that service. But the practice grew up, about the time of the war, of making the adjutant a supernumerary lieutenant. It is practicable, of course, as it was formerly, that the adjutant of a regiment should be the lieutenant of some company in the regiment.

Question. State whether or not the quartermasters of regiments can be dispensed with.

Answer. The regimental quartermasters and the regimental adjutants may be, at the same time, simply lieutenants belonging to companies in the regiment, and not supernumerary lieutenants. The opinion of the Adjutant General with reference to the number of officers which he requires I regard as the strongest evidence on that subject. But if the Congress should find it necessary to make a reduction, I think the best way to begin would be by declaring that the vacancies which now exist should not be filled. I think that, in reference to the Adjutant-Gener- al's Department, it is quite important that the question of promotion should be settled. It is now in abeyance under the act of Congress. I believe that that bar should be removed, and the number of officers that Congress chooses to leave in each grade should be fixed now, and let promotion go forward; and hereafter, when new appointments are made in the Adjutant General's Department, they should be captains and not majors, as it was before the war.

Question. Would it not be a good plan to detail officers of the line to do duty temporarily in the staff corps, requiring them to go back to their regiments after a tour of duty here of four or five years?

Answer. No, sir; I think not. There are some always detailed to

perform that duty, but this detail would soon become a matter of favoritism, and there would be constant trouble and change resulting from it. I do not think it would be as just as it is now.

Question. Would it be any more a matter of favoritism than the appointment in the first place?

Answer. Yes; I think it would be. Every lieutenant in the Army would be using all the political and other influence he could get to get a detail of this kind. Of course, they do use influence now to receive the appointment, but after they are once in the office there is but little trouble afterwards. There is no effort to turn them out. I think the present system of appointing them is best. It seems to me that it would be well now to fix the number of colonels. I assume that it would be fair to leave the two colonels that the department is now entitled to by law, and to give to it two, three, or four lieutenant-colonels. If the bar to promotion in the Adjutant-General's Office were removed General Fry would be the second colonel. There are two lieutenant colonels, and there would be then two vacancies, perhaps. Then it would be a question about filling these vacancies. The number of majors might also be fixed by law, and no promotion to the grade of major should be made until the number should be reduced to so many, leaving all that are appointed afterwards to the Adjutant-General's Department to come in with the grade of captain. Whatever reduction Congress chooses to make might be made fairly in that way..

Question. Your remark in reference to the Adjutant-General's Department would apply to the other departments as well?

Answer. Yes, sir; I think so.

Question. Pass on now to the Commissary Department and the Quartermaster's Department.

Answer. The Quartermaster's Department is really the one that presents the greatest difficulty. I think that all the trouble in reference to the staff arises from the fact that the Quartermaster's Department is, perhaps, too large and the grade of officers in the department is too high.

Question. If there must be a reduction, you think it would be best to have it made there?

Answer. That is the place that it is needed. The oldest and best officers in the department acknowledge that to be the fact.

Question. Are there not a large number of officers detailed on duty in these departments?

Answer. As a matter of course.

Question. State whether the number of quartermasters can be reduced.

Answer. I think the number of quartermasters ought to be reduced if it can be done in any fair way.

Question. Can you diminish the number of staff quartermasters at posts?

Answer. Staff-quartermasters are not willing to perform the duties of those little posts. They were fixed at larger places. We cannot afford to place a man having the rank and pay of captain or major as a regular staff-quartermaster at every little post, which may be commanded by a lieutenant or captain.

Question. Then you say that the quartermasters on the staff are not employed as post-quartermasters or as camp-quartermasters?

Answer. As a general rule, they are put in charge of depots and of large important posts.

Question. State whether or not, generally, there are more than are needed to take charge of these large and important posts.

Answer. I think there are more than required.

Question. Have you an idea of how many can be dispensed with? Answer. No, sir; I have not.

Question. What is the reason that these quartermasters of the staff cannot be advantageously put on duty at posts?

Answer. They are men of high rank and have high pay, and it would be a useless expense to put them to perform the trifling duty that has to be done at smaller posts. It is usually a lieutenant at a post who does this quartermaster's duty, and he usually does his company duty at the same time. He is usually the commissary, and, at the same time, the adjutant.

By Mr. MACDOUGALL:

Question. Does he get extra pay for that?

Answer. No. If a lieutenant is detailed to be adjutant of the post, and commissary, and quartermaster, and to have charge of the bakehouse, he has no additional pay.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Question. State what reduction, if any, can be made in the Commissary Department.

Answer. I do not think the Commissary Department is too large, so far as I know. There are several vacancies in it now, and perhaps two or three officers who are eligible to retirement.

Question. State what can be done in that view in the Inspector-General's Department. Can any reduction be made in it?

Answer. I think there might be. I think there is no necessity for filling the vacancies which now exist in the Inspector-General's Department. My opinion, in reference to the Inspector-General's Department, of which I am a member, is that all the officers in the department ought to have high rank. I think they all ought to have the rank of colonel, and that the number of them ought to be reduced. I think that Congress might abolish the grade of assistant inspectors-general-promoting the three assistant inspectors general to the grade of inspector-general, with the rank of colonel, and that no additional pay should accrue by virtue of that promotion. That would abolish two majors, now kept at the cost of $5,000 a year, besides their incidental expenses. Congress should then provide that no appointment should be made until the whole number of inspector-generals was reduced to five. I think that the Inspector-General's Department might be reduced in that

way.

Question. Passing on, then, to the Engineer Corps and the Ordnance Departinent. Are you prepared to give an opinion as to whether they can be reduced advantageously to the service and the country?

Auswer. I am not familiar with the duties which the Engineer or the Ordnance Department performs at the present time, but my opinion has been that both corps are larger than has been necessary—particularly the Engineer-if they are confined to what I would regard as strict military duty.

Question. In view of their duties as engineers, having charge of the improvement of rivers and harbors, is the department too large? Answer. The Chief Engineer seems to keep all his officers employed.

By Mr. GUNCKEL:

Question. State whether it is necessary, so far as your knowledge ex