LETTER OF PAYMASTER-GENERAL AS TO PAY AND INCREASE ANNUALLY OF PAY OF OFFICERS.

PAYMASTER-GENERAL'S OFFICE, WAR DEPARTMENT,

Washington, 1874.

SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of inquiry of the 24th instant, and to inclose the following reply:

I inclose herewith a table of the yearly and monthly pay of officers of all grades, as paid by the Pay Department, and will add that there is no difference between the pay of officers serving in the field with troops and that of officers on other active duty.

By act of 15th July, 1870, longevity rations ceased, and a salary increase or percentage for every five years' service (under certain limitations) was substituted. The average amount paid yearly for increase of pay is $578,730.

The inclosed table of the pay of the Army exhibits the yearly compensation of retired officers.

The average amount paid yearly for increase of pay to retired officers is $73,710.

The total annual compensation paid to officers on duty in Washington-say for the year 1873-by the Pay Department, is $255,930.12. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

Hon. JOHN COBURN,

BENJ. ALVORD, Paymaster-General, U. S. A.

House of Representatives.

Chairman Committee on Military Affairs,

Statement of Paymaster-General showing the average individual increase or percentage of the pay of officers, United States Army, of each grade.

WASHINGTON, February 14, 1874. General JOSEPH HOLT, Judge-Advocate-General United States Army, examined.

The CHAIRMAN. State whether or not there can be any reduction made with advantage to the Government in the Bureau of which you are the head?

General HOLT. The Bureau consists, as you are aware, of one JudgeAdvocate-General and one assistant judge-advocate-general, and has the supervision of the corps of judge-advocates, eight in number, who perform their duties under its direction. These judge-advocates are distributed over the country at military headquarters where their services are most needed. The number has been much reduced from what it was during the war. At present these officers are stationed, one of them at New York, one at Louisville, Ky., one at Saint Paul, one at Omaha, one at Leavenworth, one at San Francisco, and two are on duty in the Bureau of Military Justice. Those points have been selected where the largest amount of business existed, and where it was thought the performance of their appropriate duties would most advance the interests of the military administration. Of course the number could be reduced, but I believe the reduction would be followed by a corresponding loss to the service in one of its important fields of duty.

Question. State the character of business submitted to them-to the judge-advocates in your Bureau.

Answer. These judge-advocates are all lawyers by profession, and have also been connected with the military service; with one exception, they were in the field during the late war, some of them with troops, through almost the whole period of hostilities, and some resigned commissions in the line of the Regular Army to accept their present offices. They are stationed in the different departments with a view of legally advising the commanders thereof; with a view of directing the preparation of charges and specifications against soldiers and officers who are to be arraigned before military courts, and in difficult cases to act as judge-advocates of courts themselves. They also review the records of those tribunals when they come into the commander's office, and if errors are discovered they are pointed out before the court is dissolved, and the case is sent back to be reconsidered by the court. That is a general statement of their duties.

Question. State whether or not the questions submitted to those officers are of such a nature as that legal knowledge and high professional skill are required.

Answer. I believe so. If a determination exists to subject the military administration to the wholesome restraints of law, which is at all times desirable, and is certainly practicable in time of profound peace, I think that this corps of officers should be continued. A West Point education does not impart a thorough knowledge of a class of legal questions which arise continually in trials by courts-martial and which it is necessary to have correctly settled, both for the interests of the Government and the interests of those on trial. Experience proves that for lack of this knowledge on the part of officers, errors are at times committed by military courts which would be fatal to the reputation and future of those tried were they not subsequently corrected, on review, either through the judge advocates or the final advisory action of the Bureau of Military Justice.

Question. What is the amount of duty performed by these officers? Answer. I could scarcely now tell you. I believe they are all well

employed and some of them are, perhaps, overworked. They have no assistants. Clerks, generally private soldiers, are detailed to aid them when their services are absolutely required, but, in the performance of their own proper duties, they have no assistance, unless some difficult question arises, which they refer to this Bureau. The office of JudgeAdvocate of the Army has existed from the foundation of the Government. It was first established in 1775, and more especially organized in 1776, with the title of Judge-Advocate-General and rank of lieutenant-colonel. It has been the subject of legislation from that time to the present. The Army has never been without a legal counselor. This officer was again designated as Judge-Advocate-General by the act of 17th July, 1862, and on the establishment of the Bureau of Military Justice, in 1864, he was placed at its head.

Question by Mr. GUNCKEL. Could not the duties of the department be performed by retaining the present established force here in Washington, and using Army officers ordinarily, and in occasional cases employing additional counsel ?

Answer. It would not be so satisfactory, for this reason: Under the present system many errors in proceedings in courts-martial at remote points are at once there corrected; the records come to the commander's office and are revised by the judge advocate, and if there are errors they are without delay sent back before the court is dissolved. The employment of lawyers from civil life would doubtless involve a much larger expenditure than the present system, and would be less satisfac tory in its results, because they would not have that familiarity with military law and military usages which are deemed indispensable.

Question by Mr. GUNCKEL. It would only increase the time of transmission from the post to this city instead of the commander's office? Answer. That is only one of the disadvantages. It would deprive the commander at an important post of that legal advice in reference to his current duties which, I think, is at all times advantageous. I may add that with reference to the views of military officers regarding the utility of a judge-advocate's department, it is clear that those officers are most competent to pronounce upon the subject whose duty as the commanders of geographical departments has devolved upon them the functions of appointing and reviewing the proceedings of general courts martial.

Maj. Gen. John M. Schofield, while acting as Secretary of War, in his annual report dated November 20, 1868, states, under the head of Bureau of Military Justice, as follows:

The officers of this Bureau consist of a Judge-Advocate-General, an assistant judgeadvocate-general, and eight judge-advocates. The two vacancies in the grade of judgeadvocate, and the absence of any legal provision for filling them, have prevented a compliance with several applications from department commanders for such officers. It is recommended that the number and grade of officers of the Bureau be permanently fixed by law, so that the vacancies may be filled.—(Page 2, Report Secretary of War. Abridgment, 1868.)

It was in accordance with this recommendation that, by the act of April 10, 1869, Congress fixed the number of judge-advocates at eight, and authorized the filling of any vacancy occurring in that number. It is noteworthy that this act was passed only about five weeks after the previous Congress had, by the act of March 3, 1869, prohibited, until further legislation, any appointments or promotions in any of the other staff corps.

On the 2d May, 1872, in reply to a letter from the Hon. John Coburn, chairman of the then Committee on Military Affairs of the House of Representatives, I addressed him a communication setting

forth fully the history and duties of the Bureau of Military Justice and of the corps of judge-advocates acting under its supervision, which I beg now to make a part of my present statement, with a view of bringing the information it contains more certainly and distinctly to the notice of the committee. Said communication or report was in the words which follow.

SIR: In view of your recent suggestion that I should furnish to the committee some particulars in regard to the history, nature, and duties of the branch of the service to which I am attached-a subject upon which I had not thought it necessary to enlarge in my former official communication-I have now the honor to present the following statement.

In the British military service the office of judge-advocate-general has existed for centuries, though originally under a somewhat different name. (See Clode's Military Forces of the Crown, vol. 2, pp. 359 to 365; Grose's History of the British Army, vol. 1, pp. 234 to 236, and as cited infra.) At present there exists not only the office, but also a judge-advocate-general's department. This, according to my latest information, now consists of a judge-advocate-general and deputy judge-advocate-general-in-chief; of judge-advocates-general for the Bengal army, the Madras army, and the Bombay army, each respectively, the former being also judge-advocate-general for all the forces in India; of one deputy judge-advocate-general for Ireland, one for Barbadoes, one for China, one for Jamaica, the Bahamas, and Honduras, (collectively;) seven or eight for the Bengal and Madras armies each, and some four or five for the Bombay army.

Besides being practically the head of a military department thus constituted, the judge-advocate-general of the British army is regarded as an officer of such importance that he is also a member of the existing administration; that is to say, a minister of the civil government.

The American colonies, on their separation from Great Britain, in retaining and adopting, with slight changes, the British code of articles of war, engrafted also the office of judge-advocate-general upon their military organization. On July 29, 1775, a "judge-advocate of the Army" was appointed by the Continental Congress; and on August 10, 1776, the office was newly designated as "judge-advocate-general," and the rank of lieutenant-colonel assigned to it. Subsequently its emoluments were raised to those of colonel, and the office was continued to the end of the revolutionary war. There were also appointed during that war certain "deputy" judge-advocates for separate armies in the field.

At an early date after the adoption of the Constitution, viz, by the act of March 3, 1797, the office of judge-advocate of the Army was established. This office, as such, seems to have been subsequently discontinued, and judge-advocates for the several divisions of the army to have been provided instead, the number varying from one to three for each division. (See acts of January 11, 1812; April 24, 1816; and April 14, 1818.) Later, in 1849, by the act of March 2, ch. 83, the office of judge-advocate of the Army was revived; and this act continued in operation till July 17, 1862. On that date, in chapter 201, section 5, was enacted the following:

"That the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a Judge Advocate-General, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of a colonel of cavalry, to whose office shall be returned for revision the records and proceedings of all courtsmartial and military commissions, and where a record shall be kept of all proceedings had thereupon."

Under this statute the present incumbent of the office of Judge-Advocate-General was appointed by President Lincoln.

Further, in 1864, by act of June 20, ch. 145, sections 5 and 6, there was established the present Bureau of Military Justice, the provisions on the subject being as follows: "SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That there shall be attached to, and made a part of, the War Department during the continuance of the present rebellion, a Bureau, to be known as the Bureau of Military Justice, to which shall be returned for revisions the records and proceedings of all the courts-martial, courts of inquiry, and military commissions of the Armies of the United States, and in which a record shall be kept of all proceedings had thereupon.

"SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, as the head of said Bureau, a Judge-Advocate-General, with the rank, pay, and allowances of a brigadier-general, and an assistant Judge Advocate-General, with the rank, pay, and allowances of a colonel of cavalry. And the said Judge-Advocate-General and his assistant shall receive, revise, and have re corded the proceedings of the courts-martial, courts of inquiry, and military commissions of the armies of the United States, and perform such other duties as have here