General McDOWELL. Yes; the Government has to do one of two things, either to buy and pay a large price for that land at Atlanta, or sell the buildings before the lease expires.

Mr. YOUNG. You would recommend that the buildings be sold?

General McDOWELL. I certainly would. The owner of that ground might ask two or three hundred thousand dollars, and the Government will not give that price. I think it was a great mistake not to have purchased the land at first.

Mr. YOUNG. How many troops have you there?

General McDoWELL. There is quite a large battalion there-eight companies. I keep them as a reserve, from which I can draw to send wherever required. They can be kept at less cost there than elsewhere in the State. Atlanta occupies a strategical point, from which troops can be sent to any part of the South.

Mr. YOUNG. Atlanta would be one of the best points in the South to keep troops at?

General McDOWELL. Entirely so. I am only sorry that the Govern ment does not own the land there. If the Secretary of War should purchase the land, I would be entirely satisfied; but I see the entire hopelessness of asking an appropriation for that purpose.

Mr. YOUNG. You do not think that the houses there can be removed? General MCDOWELL. Of course they can, if we take time enough beforehand. A year before the lease expires the Government should sell these houses, to be moved off the land, or else buy the land. One of these courses should be taken. We pay $2,500 a year now, soon to be $5,100, for the lease of the land. The buildings have not been painted. I have had to shingle them. They are in a wretched state. It is the same way, however, all over the Military Department of the South.

Mr. YOUNG. Do you think that there is any necessity to retain troops in the South on account of a disloyal spirit to the Government?

General MCDOWELL. No, I do not think so. I think the people of the South are as little desirous of anything like opposition to the Government of the United States as the people of Massachusetts. I think I would look for secession now as soon in Massachusetts as in any part of the South.

Mr. YOUNG. You would advise the retaining of the Augusta arsenal by all means?

General McDoWELL. I would advise retaining it, and turning it over to the Quartermaster's Department as a station for troops, for I would advise the keeping of the troops in the South for a while longer at least. The CHAIRMAN. State whether or not, in your opinion, our present fortifications of masonry, which are uncompleted, should be completed, and whether large amounts should be expended in making extensive and expensive fortifications of masonry, or whether we can, in view of the fact that we can rapidly concentrate large bodies of men on importaut points on the coast, and rely on earth-works and heavy guns, dispense with these elaborate fortifications.

General McDOWELL. I do not think that any nation will ever be ignorant or rash enough to send an army to invade the United States. I do not think there is any need to make provision by fortifications for any such contingency, so long as we remain true to ourselves and united as a nation. Undoubtedly, when our system of fortifications was planned, different views were reasonable and necessary, and different measures had to be provided for then than would be necessary now. The improvements in artillery have also sensibly changed the whole system of fortification. Fort Sumter was built when there was no gun

which could reach it from the mainland. It was not considered possible to make a breach in Fort Pulaski at the distance from which one was actually made in the course of the last war. It was expected that troops might be landed and be able to establish themselves for such a length of time as to enable them to reduce the work by regular approaches from the land side, and provision had to be made for that.

All these considerations and others, which do not at this moment occur to me, have caused a very radical change to be made in the whole character of our sea coast fortifications, and I believe that such a change is fully recognized, fully appreciated, and will be fully met by the offi cers of the Engineer Corps. I think that, most likely, the principle that masonry should be protected from the fire of artillery at a distance, will come to be applied to sea-coast fortification, as it has been to those intended to resist the approaches of troops and artillery by land. This will, of course, to a large extent, answer your question, because the fortifications of masonry which may hereafter be built will most likely be protected by glacis of earth or sand thrown up in front of them. Another reason for a change will be in the long range of artillery, which renders it unnecessary to occupy only a very restricted site to command the narrowest part of the channel.

The CHAIRMAN. In view of this condition of affairs, what works of defense do you think it advisable for us to construct?

General MCDOWELL. I think that wherever we have a harbor which an enemy would be apt to make use of, either for the purpose of destroying our commerce or of breaking up a naval establishment, it would be desirable that some permanent works, of such a kind as the conditions which I before mentioned have made necessary, should be erected, for the reason that these works free our force afloat to be used against the enemy offensively, and that earth-works and heavy guns are a cheaper defense than anything which can be put afloat, and cost less to keep them up after they are once made.

The CHAIRMAN. In view of the fact, then, that an enemy can float large guns and attack our great sea-coast cities and naval and commercial depots, would you or not construct expensive fortifications at points of this kind?

General MCDOWELL. I would; and I think that such is, and has been, the policy of the Engineer Department.

The CHAIRMAN. What would you say as to Fort Foote, on the Potomac?

General McDoWELL. I do not see the great value of Fort Foote, except that it and Fort Washington seem to have reference to the defense of the capital of the country. That fact may have a bearing which it would be well to take into account; also the fact that there is a naval establishment here.

The CHAIRMAN. What would you say about Fort Moultrie ?
General McDOWELL. There is nothing there now.

The CHAIRMAN. What about Fort Sumter?

General McDOWELL. It and a work at Moultrie would protect Charleston, and Charleston is an important commercial point.

The CHAIRMAN. What about Fort Jackson, on the Mississippi? General MCDOWELL. I think there should be some fortification at the mouth of the Mississippi. A large part of our export commerce goes out there.

The CHAIRMAN. What about Portsmouth Harbor, New Hampshire? General MCDOWELL. There is a large naval establishment to be protected at that place.

The CHAIRMAN. What about San Diego, Cal.?

General MCDOWELL. San Diego is of no sort of consequence now. Whether it may be hereafter I cannot say. It is a most beautiful harbor, with a very small, poor back country. If a railroad should come to it, and if the place should grow to be of importance, I should say that it would be well to have a fortification at San Diego.

The CHAIRMAN. What can you tell us about the new system of torpedoes?

General McDoWELL. I take a greal deal of interest in it, though it was never under my command or control. I think that our officers in charge of the subject at Willet's Point are fully up to the advanced state of knowledge on that subject.

The CHAIRMAN. Are the improvements in torpedoes of such a character as that they are likely to afford an important branch of harbordefense?

General McDoWELL. A very important branch.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you had the Department of the Lakes under your command ?

General MCDOWELL. No; but my Department (the Department of the East) extended from Buffalo around by Lake Ontario and Lake Champlain.

The CHAIRMAN. What has been the military necessity and importance of having troops stationed along that border?

General McDOWELL. It has been made necessary by reason of our relations with England, and by the disturbed condition of Ireland, which affected people of Irish descent in this country, who tried to involve us in difficulties with England by making inroads into Canada. When I had command of the Department of the East we had great need of these posts on that northern frontier. They are necessary with regard to keeping our good faith with Great Britain on that frontier. England keeps no force whatever in Canada; no imperial troops, not even at Quebec. There are, I believe, some Canadian troops. There are no British troops in North America except at Halifax, which the English are fortifying and making very strong as an imperial naval station for the North Atlantic coast.

The CHAIRMAN. Please to give the committee your opinion on the establishment of a military prison and military punishment.

General MCDOWELL. There is a law now providing for one military prison at Rock Island, Ill. I have the impression that that measure was the result of some steps which I took when commanding the Department of the East, for the improvement of the discipline and treatment of soldiers under sentence of court-martial. I had been to Canada and had seen the military-prison system of the English. I found it several centuries in advance of our own. I was so much struck by it that I asked the Secretary of War to send a party of officers on there to look at it, so that persons of different temperament and disposition might give their opinions concerning its value and the possibility of adopting some of its features for our own country. That was done, and the report was sent by the Secretary of War to Congress, and I think the result of that is the military prison at Rock Island. As I take a great interest in that question, I wish to state to the committee that a military-prison system, such as is provided for in that bill, would simply be a useless expense to the Government, and is what I should regret excessively to see carried out.

The CHAIRMAN. Please to state your reasons.

General McDOWELL. Men who are convicted by military courts for

offenses which are crimes at common law, such as theft, robbery, violence to the person, arson, or whatever other offense would be desig. nated as a felony, should be sent to the nearest State penitentiary, after having been dishonorably discharged from the Army, and should take the same course as convicts sent by civil courts. There should be no difference in their status. But men convicted of conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline-mere infractions of military rules, or offenses purely military-should never be sent to a penitentiary. What I want to see established in our service is not a penitentiary, but a system which will apply to the whole service at all its posts. One central prison at Rock Island answers no such purpose. To have to send men from Texas, from Arizona, from the Indian country, as convicts, with an escort of a non-commissioned officer and a few privates, would involve a great expense. At one time we had something analogous to that in New York Harbor. Men were sent from all the posts in New York for punishment. I took occasion to have a list made out of the persons who had to be tried by court-martial for offenses grow. ing out of that system-for neglect on the part of the sergeants, or for drunkenness and other offenses on the part of the men-growing out of the fact of small detachments being separated from their officers and sent long distances without supervision, and it made a very large list of such offenses. What I would like to see done would be to have some provision made by which men under sentence of court-martial for purely military offenses should be punished severely, but not in a way to degrade them, but punished in such a way that they might be reformed and returned to the ranks rather than be degraded and sent out of the Army.

The CHAIRMAN. How can prisons be provided at the different posts of the Army without great expense?

General McDOWELL. The military prison at Halifax consists of inexpensive frame buildings, which have been standing for more than half a century. It is simply the system which they adopt, not the building, that is desirable. Of course it would be better to have a building. But for the punishment of soldiers for a few months it will not pay to send them a distance of several hundred or thousand miles to a central prison, to be sent back the same distance when their period of impris onment ends.

The CHAIRMAN. If we have some 400 or 500 prisoners having an average term of imprisonment of four years, would it not pay?

General MCDOWELL. I do not think we should have soldiers sentenced to imprisonment for an average term of four years. I think the punishment we give soldiers is frequently cruel in the extreme.

The CHAIRMAN. Would it not be better, in a moral point of view, to have soldiers confined in a separate or military prison than in State penitentiaries?

General McDoWELL. In the first place there is a law of Congress prohibiting soldiers from being put in a penitentiary for a military offense. The CHAIRMAN. But are they not sent to the ordinary State prisons? General MCDOWELL. They have been sent there illegally. I took out all that I found in the Baton Rouge penitentiary, because the law of Congress says that no soldier shall be confined in a State penitentiary for a purely military offense.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there not a large number of soldiers in State prisons in the North?

General McDoWELL. Yes; but if they are there for a purely military offense, they are there against the law; and any person who will take

the trouble to have a habeas corpus served can have them discharged from these State prisons.

The CHAIRMAN. Where would they be put?

General McDoWELL. At the guard-houses at the different posts; I have a military prison at Fort Macon, N. C., one of those sea-coast forts.

The CHAIRMAN. What are the prisoners engaged at?

General McDoWELL. Nothing but the ordinary fatigue-work of the post.

The CHAIRMAN. Would it not be better to have a prison, where they can be made useful and have work to perform regularly?

General MCDOWELL. If the system I advocate were established throughout the Army it would not be necessary to transport military prisoners all over the country; and they would all be kept occupied, as you may see from the report, sent in by the Secretary of War, of the board of officers sent to Canada.

The CHAIRMAN. In view of the fact that the stations of the Army are changing, and that Rock Island and Fort Leavenworth are in the department where the largest number of troops are stationed, and are likely to be stationed, would it not be better to have a considerable military prison provided there?

General McDoWELL. No; because that would require military prisoners to be sent from Texas or other distant points, with escorts, and involve very great expense.

The CHAIRMAN. Would it not be more expensive to have a prison established at every post?

General MCDOWELL. No; because at every post there is a guardhouse now; and military prisons, of an inexpensive character, could be established at most of the principal posts.

The CHAIRMAN. Are not prisoners confined there without working? Can you have any proper system of imprisonment at posts, especially small ones?

General MCDOWELL. Yes; you can have such a system as the English have, and with them every guard-house is a military prison. The system does not, of course, work as well at a small post as at a large one, and it might be well to send the prisoners from such posts to the nearest large one.

The CHAIRMAN. If a soldier is sentenced to two or three years' imprisonment, would it not be much cheaper even to transport him a few hundred miles and place him in a large prison than keep him under guard at a post?

General MCDOWELL. The only question is to have such a system as that men can be properly punished and avoid at the same time the disgrace which attaches to the present system, as well as to the one established by Congress, and I want a system which can apply to the whole service, and to men sentenced for a few months as well as to those for several years; where soldiers shall be punished as soldiers, not as convicts.

The CHAIRMAN. State whether or not, if the Army is to be reduced, it should be reduced by organizations, or in the number of men; and whether the staff shall be reduced to compare with the reduction in the line.

General MCDOWELL. The staff now is asserted to be larger than the needs of the present establishment call for, and there is provision in the present laws for the gradual shrinking of the staff. Congress has shrunk the Pay Department below the needs of the service and is now asked to