vious to remark that it is limited in its terms. Looking through the laws as they are collected in the compilation published under the authority of the War Department in 1825, the first act to which I am referred is that of 3d March, 1813, which authorizes and directs the Secretary of War "to define and prescribe the species as well as the amount of supplies to be respectively purchased by the Commissary General's and Quartermaster General's departments, and the respective duties and powers of the said departments, respecting such purchases; and, also, to adopt and prescribe general regulations for the transportation of the articles of supply," &c., for the safekeeping of such articles, and for the distribution of them," &c.; "and to fix and make reasonable allowances for store-rent," &c.

The next act on the subject is of the same date; and the fifth section makes it the duty of the Secretary of War "to prepare general regulations, better defining and prescribing the respective duties and powers of the everal officers in the Adjutant General's, Inspector General's, Quartermaster General's, and Ordnance departments, of the topographical engineers, of the ids of generals, and, generally, of the general and regimental staff; which egulations, when approved by the President of the United States, shall be espected and obeyed, until altered or revoked by the same authority. And he said general regulations, thus prepared and approved, shall be laid be. ore Congress at their next session."

The authority to make regulations which is given by this act, relates to he powers and duties of certain officers therein mentioned; but does not, apprehend, extend to a modification of the then existing organization of le army. Neither of the acts has reference to pay and emoluments; and may be doubted whether the last, which is by far the most comprehenve, does not confer a merely temporary right to exercise the power grant1, since it required the regulations, which were to be framed in accordance ith its requisitions, to be laid before Congress at its next session.

The act of the 2d March, 1821, section 14, approves and adopts a sysm of general regulations for the army, compiled by Major General Scott; ut the act of the 7th May, 1822, repeals the section.

I confess that I am unable, on this review of the several laws relative to e subject, to discover by what authority the order of the 16th of June, 327, so far as it professes to define what shall constitute a command acording to rank to entitle to brevet pay, annuls the provisions of the act of 818, and substitutes its own; and looking to the sources of these conflictig authorities, I am constrained to believe that brevet pay must still be limed to those who, in the language of the act of 1818, are on duty, and ive a command according to their brevet rank, and cannot be legally exnded to those whose command is double that which their ordinary or gimental rank habitually authorizes, but which is at the same time not xcording to that to which their brevet rank entitles them; and, therefore, at the order of the 16th June, 1827, in so far as it goes beyond this, is valid.

It does not occur to me that it will be expected from me to proceed furer into details in answering the general inquiry which has been proposed me, how far aud to what extent brevet pay can be allowed. Yet it may proper to say, looking to the cases of officers in the bureaus of the War Department, in the ordnance and engineer corps, and commanding the Miliry Academy and cadets, that the terms used by Congress in the grant of revet pay seem wholly unsuited to these cases. I do not profess to be uniliar with the technical language of military science; but it appears to

me that when Congress used the expression, command according to rank they had reference to troops-bodies of soldiers constituting ordinarily the elements of an army-and not to artificers, or to officers whose rank and science might be held equivalent to the numerical force required by the act or the pupils of the Military Academy, whether prosecuting their scientific studies, or imbodied for the drill, and acquiring a knowledge of tactics. But each of these cases has been specifically decided; not, as I apprehend in the exercise of the power to make regulations for the army, but in the fulfilment by the President of his obligation to see the laws executed. As such, though not obligatory, they are certainly entitled to respect. Besides they have been acted upon for some years; and having been probably brought to the notice of committees of Congress, in the explanations given as estimates submitted by the War Department, may, therefore, be sur posed to have received the implied approbation of that body. These considerations concur with others to recommend an early submission to Cergress of this branch of the subject. The question whether, in the me time, it may be advisable to disturb the actual status, or present interpre tion of the rule, by reversing these decisions of your predecessors, is on t expediency; on which, I presume, it is hardly expected that I should ex press an opinion.

Of double rations.-The act of 3d March, 1797, first gives doute rations to the brigadier general while commanding-in-chief, and to each officer commanding a separate post.

The act of 16th March, 1802, provides that each officer commanding a separate post shall receive such additional number of rations as the Pres dent shall from time to time direct, having respect to the special circumstances of each post.

and in

In the general regulations promulgated by the War Department for 1825. article 71, section 1125, it is provided, that double rations shall be allowed to the commandants of departments, and of such posts and arsenals as the War Department shall anthorize; and by a document before me from the Paymaster General's office, purporting to show the number of those receiving double rations at this time, it appears that the allowance of extra rations is made, under the act of 1802, to the commandants of posts; other cases, by the special orders of the War Department. These special orders are made, I presume, in virtue of the power which, in the preceding part of this argument, I have considered incident to the authority of the President as commander-in-chief-that of designating the posts of the army and, so far as regards the quantum of the extra allowance, by force of the authority given by the act of the 16th March, 1802, above referred to.

It is not, I think, to be doubted that the authority of the President for the time being is competent to this purpose. The power incident to his office as commander-in-chief, to designate the posts, and the authority given by the act to determine the quantum of the allowance, place the whole subjec under his control. It is a power, however, which is just equal to that of the actual incumbent of the presidential office, the exercise of which by his predecessor is entitled to be respectfully considered, but has nothing of the binding authority of precedent. Passing from the commandants those military stations which are universally considered as posts, in the or dinary military acceptation of that term, to those which, by special orders of the President, acting through the War Department, have had extra rations allowed to them, on the ground of certain analogies supposed exist between them and the first class-if the analogies on which those

rders are presumed to have been founded are not considered satisfactory o you, it is equally in your power to revoke them. Until, however, it hall be deemed advisable to do this, extra rations are, I apprehend, proprly issuable to all those specified in the document to which I have refered, as commanding at posts in the ordinary military acceptation of that erm, and to those to whom, by the special order of the President, the same ave been directed to be issued.

Of the right of the Surgeon General and Paymaster General to fuel nd quarters.-Fuel and quarters are allowances not specifically granted y law, but made under the authority of the War Department. The check stained by Congress is exercised in giving or withholding the appropri tion; to obtain which, estimates are submitted by the Department to the Vays and Means of the House, and to the Finance Committee of the Senate. These allowances, thus subjected to the scrutiny of Congress, have been eretofore made to both of these officers, in pursuance of the regulation of e War Department, until, in conformity to a decision of the late Second omptroller, they were withheld from the Paymaster General; and the riking similarity between this case and that of the Surgeon General has duced the inquiry whether, in relation to the latter also, these allowances ight not to be stopped.

They are both military officers; that is, officers existing by force of the et of 1821, entitled "An act to reduce and fix the military establishment the United States." Their rank, though neither lineal nor assimilated ereto, is recognised as equal in the general regulations of the army. hey are both salaried officers, receiving the same amount of compensation. ach is at the head of his respective department, actually performing his actions at headquarters; while each is also liable to be sent elsewhere by e orders of the commander-in-chief; and the allowance of fuel and quarrs, heretofore made to them under the authority of the War Department, is been equal.

I confess myself unable to distinguish between the claims. Both of these ficers appear to me to be entitled, and equally entitled, to these allowances. The length to which this communication is unavoidably drawn out, in nsidering the various subjects referred to me, makes me unwilling to spass upon your time, or unnecessarily to employ my own, by an extended gument on this question. I am the more induced to dispense with such argument, concurring as I do in the opinion expressed by my predecesrn the case of the Surgeon General, and believing, as I have before id, that the same rule ought to be applied to both these officers. I have e honor to present herewith a copy of that opinion from the records of is office.

It may not be improper, however, to remark, that the late Second Compoller appears to have erred, in point of fact, in supposing that the salary of e Paymaster General was payable quarterly at the Treasury, and to have isconceived the effect of the argument of the committee of the House of epresentatives to which he has referred, confounding the idea of an officer the civil staff of the army with a civil officer not attached to it; and that hen the error, in point of fact, to which I have referred, is corrected, his union in the case of the Paymaster General is, in principle and fact, in ecise conflict with that which he had previously given in the case of the argeon General.

I would add, that there is nothing in the term salary which, in my opinn, confines it to civil officers, or excludes the allowances which are the

subject of this inquiry. It is not necessarily an annual, but merely a pe riodical compensation; and may as well be applied, according to the ine pretation given to it by lexicographers, to the monthly, as to the annu pay of our military officers. A brigadier general, to whom Congres should give $3,000 per annum, would be no more a salary-officer than the same result were produced by providing for him a monthly pay $250; and there is, I apprehend, no principle on which fuel and quarte could be allowed in the last case, on which it could be refused in the firs The distinctive characteristic of salary is, that it is a certain stated com pensation; and it is thus equally applicable to both these modes of com pensation.

It is a mistake, too, to suppose that the term is applicable universally exclusively to the compensation of civil officers. Their remuneration s frequently contingent, depending on fees of office; and, though the inves tigation for the purposes of this inquiry is scarcely worth the trouble. ya those who make it will find that the term salary, in its origin, was strict applied to the military stipend of the soldier.

My own opinion on this subject is, that fuel and quarters are allowed a principle which has no sort of connexion with the question of gener pecuniary compensation. They are furnished in kind to cflicers in t field; and this, from the necessity of the thing. If, on the peace-esta lishment, a commutation be resorted to, it is equally due to all those wh are liable to take the field, because they are equally within the pri on which it is specifically given when there.

Of the pay, emoluments, and allowances of the marine corps. attentively perused the very full and elaborate report of the Fourth Audit on this subject, and such suggestions as the officers of the marine cor have thought proper to submit; and have carefully examined the legis tive origin and subsequent history of this corps, with a view to enable to fulfil the expectations which induced this reference. I regret to say this investigation has been extremely unsatisfactory; that the legislati Congress and the continued (perhaps unavoidable) usage of the exa department seem to me to be little consonaut to the principle which 200sidered so important in our Government-namely, that the money t public should not be applied to any object but under the sanction of press specific appropriation.

Without entering into a detailed examination of all the various p ́^ so fully discussed by the Fourth Auditor, I presume I shall meet pl wishes by a consideration of the following question:

1. Are laws regulating the pay, &c., &c., of the army applicable to marine corps? I will briefly examine this subject. In the discusser this question, recourse has been had to the term by which the corps is des signated, to its organization and tactics, to the rules prescribed for its g ernment and the mode in which they are judicially enforced, and to several laws by which it has been created and organized, and which re to it as a part of the military establishment, or treat of its relations to the navy, to affirm or deny the proposition that the marine corps is a part the army of the United States.

This process does not seem to me to lead to a result which is entre satisfactory, although some of its views are imposing. It is true that " term marine indicates something appertaining to the sea; but, o other hand, the organization, discipline, drill, and police of the corps necessarily more assimilated to that of the army than the navy. Nothing

appears to me, can be collected from the nature of the rules prescribed for the government of the corps, nor from the manner of their enforcement, because these are made to depend on the nature of the service in which it is employed; and the laws which relate to its establishment and organization, treating it alternately as an appendage of the army or navy, may be cited with plausibility to sustain either branch of the proposition, although they furnish some considerations which strongly corroborate the affirmative. Still the inquiry remains, and no entirely satisfactory conclusion is arrived at. In an enlarged and general sense, the military establishment of the United States includes both the army and navy. Both are established

with a view to military service, and differ chiefly because of the different theatre on which they are employed. English military writers define marine to be a body of soldiers raised for the sea-service, and trained to fight either in a naval engagement or in an action on shore. But they tell as also that officers of marines sit on courts-martial with officers of the and forces; and the same thing was true here, as I appprehend, even beore the act of the 10th April, 1806. Indeed, this corps seems to be sui eneris, partaking of the character both of the land and sea forces, yet trictly identified with neither.

If it is necessary to determine to which arm of the military service this orps has the greater similitude, and if I must venture an opinion on a uestion of this kind, which your more familiar acquaintance with the bject so much better qualifies you to decide, I would say that, in sundry aportant particulars, its greater affinity is the army. This may be affirmed its organization, which corresponds rather with that of the army than e navy. It is, in fact, a regiment composed of the material of nine comnies, having a regimental staff nearly assimilated to that of the army oper. Its discipline, drill, and police, are those of the army. The corps, such, acts on shore; its headquarters are on shore; it is only in delachent that it performs sea-service; its officers associate with those of the my on courts martial. The regulations for the government of the navy em to consider them as an entirely distinct corps, even when serving on ard ship. By these, marine officers are subjected to the command only the captain and officer of the watch; and supplies furnished them by the rser of the ship are to be paid for by the officer charged with paying ! marines.

Notwithstanding their indefiniteness, the several acts establishing the mae corps deserve some consideration with a view to our present inquiry. le corps was directed to be raised by the act of 1798, as an addition to then existing military establishment. It is true, as has been before ted, that this term may include the whole military force of a country, thon sea and land; but it is equally true, that, since the erection of the wy Department, Congress has always practically distinguished between two branches of military force, confided to the care of the Secretaries War and of the Navy respectively. Again: the act of the 2d March, 99, which authorizes the President to augment the marine corps, declares it the persons so appointed and enlisted shall be allowed the same pay, inly, clothing, and rations, to which the said marine corps are or shall entitled. Now, the only pre-existing act concerning the marine corps. at of 1798) provides only for pay and subsistence, and is silent as to bounty d clothing. But these were, in point of fact, allowed to the marine corps; d Congress thus recognised the legality of their allowance. By what thority were they so allowed? The acts to provide a naval armament