The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-04-11

WAsHIsoros, April s, 1854.
10 the Editor Of NE Union.
SIN; notice in your paper Of this date an article by
John h Steele IN which be has thought proper to attack
me, not by name, yet plainly that no one can misun.
desland to whom he refers. This article so far as re.
CARDS lis specific statements consists entirely OF assertions
having no other support than the say.so OF the wri.
ter, and consequently without the shadow OF proofs for
he can hardly expect people TO take his word on any mat
ter pertaining 10 the management OF the national armores
alter bis conduct as commissioner appointed TO invest.
gate amory matters and in view OF his being candidate
for the supernendency Of of them and consequently
personally interested IN a change.
In this connexion may remark. in reference 10 ba,
commission and 10 show The value due TO the reports of
some OF Them that OF the commissioners expressed
himself in favor of abosbng the superintendence BY
military officers and returning to the former mode OF "a
perniendence BY civilians bis arrival at Spring FIELD
before he had entered upon the inquiry or had visited the
armory and at least others OF the commission were
personally interested in changing the mode Of the super
niendenee from being expecisRs they have since be-
come candidates. for The Offices oil superintendent Their
conduct throughout the pretended investigation clearly
showed that they only sought for matter TO sustain them
in their oregone conclusions and suppress or
pass over everything opposed thereto. What can be
thought OF an investigations lasting three months which
the books and official records OF The armory were not ex
amined, whilst the views and opinions OF discharged ar
moers and disappointed place and contract seekers were
taken, recorded and used evidence The whole trans
action looked upon by dsnteesed pefsons az no, wor
thy the name OF investigation but most thorough
" one sided affair." most complete failure aud perfect
farce
Mr. Steele begins his letter TO you by assuming that
The article, 10 which he is replying emanates from the
ordnance board or officers connected herewith and he
treats II rs such In this assumption he is wrong The
article emanaed neither from the ordnance board nor any
officer connected with i, from an officer Of or any
one connected with, the ordnance department The
assertion or rather nsnuaon, for even he ha. not the
edrontery TO assert II outright, is, tba, officers of the
army have been the direct indirect agents in procu.
ring the passage Of laws by which they m their peck
and conrve 10 perpetuale their power" This bears
upon It's face absafdy aud misstaiement OF fact
an absurdiy in atiribung TO officers OF The army the
power to shape legislation and missa,emept as to the
pecunary advantages they derive from such legislation
The officers in command Of the amories do not receive
single cent in consequence OF holding such commando
nor have they any greater pay allowances. or any
more power, than they ~oud have il Gov Steele should
succeed in oosng them as be ia trying do for the pur
pose Of getting himself appointed superintendent II
is admitted by Mr. Steele that the officers are in com.