Daily evening star. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1852-1854, 1854-07-18
DAILY EVENING STAR.

DAILY EVENING STAR,
TRUTH Is GREAT AND MUST PREVAIL
superintendsncies Of the United States
- Armories.
TO the Editor: ...,.
In the Star Of Saturday evening, YOU
have given to the world what YOU cali
" The history of the current Controversy
IN the House on the subject" / under.
stand you mean by that, that what vou
have stated are historical facts.
l beg leave to assure you, that fully
believe that you honestly intended to
give /" facts;" but you have been essen.
TALLY miSled in your information, and,
instead of facts. large portion of your
article gives false view Of the subject
on which it treats. | trust you will al.
low an individual who has for MANY
years been familiar with the subject, to
correct your facts, especially with refer.
ence to the Springfield ar1nory.
Ihe national armories were establish.
ed about sixty years ago, under the
charge of civilians Il appointed by the
President, and they continued under the
charge OF civilians until April, 1871
thirteen years and quarter ago, when
occasion of a change of Administration
was seized upon by the Ordnance Corps,
whose members had long coveted their
posts of superintendents and the Secre.
tary OF War was persuaded to appoint
Ordnance officers to those places. (2)
This was done, as I understand it, with.
out legal authority, {5) and the act ma.
king it legal was not passed till August,
l842. 1t is worthy of remark, that this
measure of the Secretary of War, was
taken within thirty or forty days after
the inauguration of General Harrison.
and about the time of his decease when
it may properly be said we had no Pres.
ldent,(4) And it was done in the face
of the protestation of civilians from all
quarters. The workshops, up to that
period, seem well regulated, and in that
aspect equal to the best in New England,
and the "practices'' in them were not
" improper. I5)
1t is a mistake, toe, that civil superin.
tendents were appointed on "tolitical
grounds" l need only to 60 back to the
year 1915, when Col. Roswell Lee, of
Connecticut, a practical gunsmith, (6)
was appointed by President Madison.
Col. Lee continued in the station until
1888, a period of Is years, when he died.
deem it not too much to say that greater
improvements were made in every depart.
ment of the army during Col. Lees ad.
ministration than have been made by all
the other superintendent, civil and mil
itary together. During the disability of
Col. Lee by sickness, and for q short time
after he died, Col. George Talcott, of the
Ordnance Corps, performed the duties of
superintendent for several months; and
in 1884 he was relieved by the appoint
ment of John Robb, 60 of Maryland,
by President jackson. Mr.. Robb dis
charged the duties of the Office with great
advantage to the government for nearly
eight years, (S) when he was suddenly
suspended by the appointment of Major
James Wolfe Ripley, an ordnance officer,
who is the present incumbent. The i'm.
provements made by Mr.. Robb were as
great in proportion to the time lie held
the station, as they were under his pre-.
decesser. The appointment of these two
ofcers-their administration covering a
space of quarter of q century-wase en-
tirely independent of"political grounds"
and the idea that party had influence du-
ring the existence of the civil supervision,
is late invention o. and has no foun-
dation in fact, and it has been put forth
as I have reason to believe, for sinister
purposes. I will not undertake to assert
that 'spolitical influences" had no in
tiuence with the change of system, and
the appointment of the ordnance officer,
for the facts were, that Mr.. Robb was
Democrat, and Major Ripley, who sup
planted hin, was well known to be a
Wing, and the act was one of the first
under the newly installed Whig admin
istration (10.) l think l have said
enough Of political grounds"
In regard to the assertion that "that the
Government failed 70 get fair return for
their expenditures, that also is a mis-
take. You will readily see by the report
of the special committee, which you
speak of, that the musket has cost less
under the civil than under the military
rule, (l1) and the estimation is based
upon the annual official reports of the
Department of War; and this, too, under
the great advantages which the latter
administration has enjoyed in the great
improvements in machinery, which have
been introduced at great expense.
will remark, in this connection, that all
the improvements in the manufacture
have been made by civil artizans, and l
have never yet heard of one, even so tn
fling, being suggested by a military
officer. (l2)
The "Ordnance Board" was instituted
long before the period you speak of
think about the year 1915, but this error
is of no other account than as matter
of history. 1t is, however, ofimportance
to correct your statement, that the armo-
ries ewere rot tbriftily managed" under
the civil supervision. In doing this, the
annual official reports of successive Sec
retaries of War will be found to exhibit
strong proof; (13) but leaving that au-
thority, I quote two letters from success
i've Chiefs Of the Ordnance Department,
which authority will not he painSayed or