Washington sentinel., 1854-04-08

4
the duties which they are now performing but
when it it recollected that the law of 1888, in
creasing the corps Of engineers, and organizing
the corps of Typographical engineers, repealed
the authority which had been granted to the
President by the act of Congress of 1924, to
employ civil engineers on government work,
the obligation OF the Executive to employ the
| government engineers to superintend the gov
ernment works becomes mandatory"
It'll not denied, that in many instances the
sanction of law has been obtained for the en-
| ployment of military men in places which,
under our republican system Of government,
should be filed by civil engineers and other
eminent men in private life; but the humiliat-
ing fact only shows how much the legislation
of the country has been interfered with and
directed by military men. Their disposition
to intermedde with the action Of Congress,
whenever it is necessary to secure or prevent
legislation affecting them, is too notorious to
be disputed. 1t has been by their direct inter
ference that many enactments have been made
securing to them civil places. An instance
occurred in 1912, when, but for direct inter-
ference, the law never would have passed au-
thorizing military officers to superintend the
mechanical operations of manufacturing fire.
arms.
There is no foundation for the claim of
power set up by the Union, and sought to be
sustained by the repeal of the act Of 1924,
which authorizes the President +" to appoint
ciua engineers on government acorks" BY
this repeal, the Union contends that the obli-
cation Of the Executive to employ the govern
ment engineers to superintend the govern
ment works becomes Mandatory" The Union
could not have intended deliberately to impose
upon the credulity Of the public by such a
statement; and yet so glaringly absurd is the
assumption of power from this repeal, that it
is hard to resist such conviction.
The act of 1924, repealed by the law of 1888,
gave authority to the President to cause "sur-
veys, plans, and estimates, to be made Of the
routes of such roads and canals as he may
deem of national Importance" to be made and
submitted to Congress; and, to carry into eff
feet this object, he was authorized to employ
t,co or more skilltal cir1 engineers, and such
officers of the corps of engineers as he may
deem proper" 1t will require some ingenuity,
upon the part of the Union, to show that the
repeal of this special law, authorizing the en-
ployment of civil engineers for special pur-
pose, made it obligatory upon the President in
all future cases to employ on government
works none but army officers. If there is no
hatta Il, IL L.,
quarter army officers on the civil service of the
country than the repeal of this law, it is time
the subject should be fully understood by the
country.
In the cases of the Capitol extension and the
custom-houses, the Union admits that there
exists no positive authority of law to autho-
rize the employment of military men, but re-
solves the subject of the propriety of these ap-
pointments into one of mere policy. 1t con.
tends that the government have corps of en-
gineers, who by hard study and long experience
are eminently qualified for the management of
mechanics and the elaboration of the details
of complex and extensive architectural struc.
ture. This is sheer nonsense, and the military
engineers Of the government themselves know
it. Where, when, and how have they acquired
proficiency sufficient to enable them to design
and perfect such structure as the United
States Capitol?
But they have disbursed large sums Of mo.
ney and accounted faithfully for every cent of
oft" For this reason, we suppose, they oc-
| cupy SO exalted a position above civilians, that
they are exempt from those requirements
| which are necessary to secure the fidelity of
mere citizen. A common citizen, entrusted
with the disbursement Of government money to
the least extent, is required to give bond and
security; but military officer is so naturally
honest, that such q guaranty is unnecessary.
| What law of the land authorizes such distnc
ton between military man, when employed
in civil service, and worthy citizen? Does
! the Union advocate SO odious a discrimination?
Will it pretend that such doctrine is demo
cratic?
If government engineers are qualified for
these civil posts, they are much more so for
their legitimate professional duties. The Co.
lionel of Engineers, in his report above alluded
to, says:
"The engineer department is seriously en-
barrassed by the want of officers, and must,
therefore, again press the necessity Of an in
crease of the corps"
True policy would seem to indicate that, in.
stead of thrusting these officers into civil sta
tions where our own eminent architects and
civil engineers are better qualified from edu-
cation, experience, and exemption from the
austerity Of military habits, to perform the du.
ties, they should be employed as the laws in.
tended, and thus do away with the "embar-
rassment" of which the colonel complains.
There is no excuse for these "embarrassments,"
while SO many of the corps are performing
other duties, beyond the line of their profes
sion.
!, The original enactment, authorizing the ex-
e Al L. =. al