Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-04-22

telligence and high character, honored with
the confidence of the President, and infinitely
better qualified to decide questions of this Kind
than any of your mere men of science with no
practical ability. But fortunately, the proof of
this important truth depends not alone upon
the testimony of MIR. Smith. The commission
ers at Springfield not only had ocular demon.
stratlon of the fact, but many disinterested wit
nesses corroborated his statement.
AS regards the cost of the arms, under each
system, there is and always will be, difference
OF opinion, until the rule by which it is to be
estimated shall be fixed and agreed upon. The
ordnance department has one mode of calcula-
ting, while business men in like employment
have another. We see no reason in the world
why the expenditures for stylish quarters, orna,
mental grounds, and other unnecessary extra
vagances should not enter into the calculation,
since government has to pay for them.
But, if the testimony of experienced men is
to be believed, it is not true that the cost to the
government was greater under the civil system
than it is now. Even if it was, there would
be good reasons, not affecting the efficiency of
the system, why it should have been greater.
As we have fully shown above, the military sys-
ten had immense advantages over the civil in
the extent of the appropriations, tho increased
skill of workfhen, and the improved character
of tools and all kinds of machinery. Work
men, from their increased facilities, do infinite
ly more work for less money than they did
under the civil system, and the item of wages
is thus greatly reduced. Materials cost no
more now than they did then and, though it
is estimated that the labor in making musket
costs three dollars and twenty-nine cents less
now, no corresponding reduction is made in
the aggregate cost of the arm
The Union speaks of the :. old aaolel' as an
inferior arm, and gives the military system
credit for the nero model" which is represented
as far superior. 1t is hardly fair to institute
such a comparison, with view of disparaging
scrbed by the ordnance board, and without
their authority the civil officers had no right 10
change the one for the other. OF the troops
under General Taylor at the memorable battle
Of Buena Vista, there were but two regiments
armed with the "ne,o model" while every other
one used the "old model" and we have heard
no complaint of their ineficiency The idea
that the arms manufactured under military su.
pervision are superior in workmanship, is
grossly erroneous, and we make the assertion
with the utmost confidence that we can main
tain it. The commission at Springfield had
the arms of both periods before them, with
competent practical armorers to strip them,
and explain the excellences or defects of their
respective parts.
The testimony is published, and we have it
now before US. We have not room to quote
from it, or we would lay copious extracts be.
fore our readers. Suffice it, that the testimony
was sufficient to convince every man on the
board, except the two military officers, that the
workmanship on those made in 1853 ,oas far
inferior, in many important particulars, to
those made in lS40."
As an evidence of the uniformity of con-
struction, and as exhibiting the superior per.
lection of the arms made under the military
system over those made under the civil, the
Union quotes from report of the inspector Of
armories, on the subject of certain damaged
arms, which were taken to pieces at Harper's
Ferry, and their several parts found to inter
change with great exactitude. The evident
object is, to create the impression that this ia.
cility Of interchange of the several elements
of an arm is due to the skill and science Of
the military superintendent who have brought
the manufacture Of arms to admirable perfec.
ton. Nothing could be more unjust. That
credit is due to the civil system and the official
reports Of the War Department, made long be.
fore the military system was instituted, abund.
antly show it. But we have before us very
able report upon this very subject, made to the
House Of Representatives on the 18th day of
January, 1889, by the Hon. VIM. Cost John.
son, which is so much in point that we cannot
forbear to make an extract. This, it will be
Observed was more than two years before the
military superintendent were appointed at the
armories: y..>
The most experienced transatlantic officers
and artisans admit that the muskets and rifles
now made in the United States are superior, in
point Of finish and usefulness, to the best made
in Europe. So perfect and improved has been
the system adopted in our factories, that we
have accomplished what a board of French
officers pronounced desideratum that was i'm.
possible. They thought that it was impossible
SO to make musket, that part of the work
made for one would suit or fit the residuary
part made in another shop or factory, and by
different hands; that the springs aud screws,
made to suit a given lock, could be made with
such uniformity and precision as to answer for
the corresponding parts Of different lock.
They thought that, if part of musket was lost
or injured, there could not be taken a similar
part of another, and make it quadrate with all
its uses, but that the aid of mechanic must
be employed or the musket be discarded.
Such is or has been the fact with the arms
made IN France, because the filings Of the
various parts are regulated chiefly hv The aya