Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1819-04-10


the same time, in mos, Of the public pa
pers.
LETTER II.
CEN. JACKSON TO GEN. SCOTT.
Head Quarters, Isl and Sd Military De-
porfments,
Nsu-Y York, Oct 4th, 1877.
Sir,
have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt ofyour letter Of the Btu ultimo, to-
gether with the two papers therein encios-
ed.
am not the author of the miserable and
unmeaning article copied from the Co.
lumbar" and (not being reader of that
Gazctte) should probably never have heard
oft, but for the copy you have sent n.
And whilst on the subject of writing and
publishing, it may save time, TO say, at
once, tha. with the exception OF the sub
stance OF two articles which appeared in
The Enquirer" last fall, and journal
kept WHIST prisoner in the hands OF the
enemy, have net written, or caused any
other TO write single line fer any Tia
zette haieyer, since the commencement
Of tae late war.
Conye-sing with some two or three PR
yste gentlemen, about as many times on
the subject OF the division order, dated al
Nashville, April 92d, 1917 (; it istrue that
1 gave it as my opinion, that that paper
was az il respected the future, musinous
in lis character and tendency, and as II
respected the past, reprimand OF the
Commander in Chief, the President OF the
United States-for although the latter be
not expressly named, il is principle well
understood, that the war department, With
ont at least his supposed sanction: canuo'
give a valid con- mand to an ensign.
haze thus, sir, frankly answered the
queries addressed to me, and which were
suggested to you by the letter OF your "a
porIvmous correspondent--but on a ques-
ton SO important as that which you have
raised with the Var Department, or
IN other, words with the president Of the
United States, and, in which, l find my
sell incidentally Involved, i mus. take leave
TO illustrate my meaning little, in DONG
which, | shall employ almost the precise
language Which was used on the occasions
above alluded to.
Take any three offcers-Let A be the
common superior, B ;he,intermediate com
laander, and c the common junior. A
wishes 10 make an order, which shall e.
feet C. The good of the service, etiquette
and courtesy, require, no doubt, that the
order should pass through b; or II eNPe'
di,ion and The dispersed situation OF the
parties make it necessary to sepd the or
der direct to C, tof which necessity A IS
the jude, the good Of the service, etiquette
and courtesy require, with as little doubt,
that A notify 3 thereof, as soon as practl-
cable. Such notice of itself, has always
been held sufficient, under the circumssan-
ces last stated. But we will suppose that
A sends the order direct to c, and neg.ects
10 notify B lhereoi-and such appears to
be the precise case alluded 10 in the order
before stated. Has no redress against
this irregularity? He may unquesiionabiy
remonstste with A in respectful manner;
and il remonstrance fails, and there be
higher military authority than A, B may
appeal to it Tor redress. in the case
under consideration, there existed no such
higher authority--the war department, or
in other words, the President, being the
common superior, (A], and the general OF
Division, tie intermediate commander OBJ.
A private and respectful remonstrance,
therefore, appears tohave been the only
mode of redress which circumstances adj
mit,ed of. An appeal to the army or the
public, before or after such remonstrance,
seems to have been a greater irregularty
than the measure complained OF to
reprobate that measure publicly, as the
division order does, was to amount stiil
higher in the scale OF indecorum, but when ;
the order goes SO far as to prohibit to all The
officers in the division, aa obedience to the
conmands of the President of the United
States, unless received through division
bead quarters, il appears to me, that no. |
thing bit mu;iny and defiance, can be un- /;
dersiood or intended. !:
There IS another yinE nf this subject, (