Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-04-18
MILITARY SUPERVISION OF CIVIL
WORKS.

WORKS.
1t does not seem to US, that any single posi-
ton assumed in our articles upon this subject,
has in the slightest degree been shaken OF
impaired by the remarks Of the Union in its
Sunday mornings issue. On the contrary, the
whole tone and character of the Unions article,
is rather tribute to the truth and justice Of
the positions Of this paper. It does not deny
our facts, but rather ingeniously seeks to evade
their force--in the language Of the bar, it " con-
fesses and avoids" But let us see. whether
the matter in avoidance is we'll pleaded and suf
icient.
The Union admits. that our extracts from the
chief engineers report, showing the embarrass-
ments of that corps growing out of the distri-
button of the officers belonging to it in various
civil employment, were correct; but AYERS that
the report from which they we're taken showed
the condition of the corps in November last,
while its own statement had reference to the
condition of the corps at the present time Ii
then agrees that we were both right. But
the objection to the statement Of the Union,
which we made in former article, is by no
means met. The Union alleged that of the
thirty-two officers said to be employed on civil
duties twenty-three are in charge Of the con-
struction of Notifications on our Atlantic, Gull,
and Pacific coasts. We replied that this was
unfair and deceptive, because it left the i'm
preston that but nine of these thirty-two Off
GERS we're employed in cirI service, while
tlcenty-tlree of them we're in the exclusive dis
charge of their legitimate military duties. Now,
the truth Isl that if twentythree of these thirty
two engineer officers are in charge of the con-
struction of Notifications, they hare also charge
of important Girl ,corks, and, in most Of the
cases, the charge of Notifications is q mere
nominal duty.
Except in California, we know Of no impor.
tant appropriation which has been made for
several years for the construction of fortifca-
tons and being IN charge of them is being SO
only in name, and not in reality, as we suppose
to be the case in the instance of the engineer
at the Capitol, who is set down as being in
charge Of Fort Montgomery, New York. We
respectfully submit to the Union, whether an
attempt 10 disguise or conceal the real state Of
the facts is wise or just, and if perfect frank
ness on all sides would not be better. Every
one of the thirty-two officers, named above, are
in some way connected with and have charge
of works of a purely cira character, unless dis
missed within the last few weeks, notwithstand-
ing some of them may be set down as in
charge of the construction Of Notifications"
Our quotations from the law Of 1924 are re-
peated BY the Union, and admitted to be cor
rect Now, that law authorized the President
to appoint two or more civil engineers to sur.
yey such roads and canals as he might deem
of national importance, and report the result to
Congress. In 1888 SO much of this law as au-
thorized the appointment Of three civil engi-
neers for that particular purpose was repealed,
and we agree with the Union fully that the au-
thority of the President to employ them in the
survey Of the roads and canals mentioned in
the act is fully at an end; but we are not
stupid enough to believe that the repeal Of the
law authorizing the employment of civil engi
neers in the survey of roads and canals made
it obligatory upon the President, in all time to
come, to employ none but military engineers
on'evsry possible work in which the govern
ment might engage. And yet this is the re-
suit to which the Union would have US arrive,
from its argument.
Suppose, instead Of repeating that part Of the
law which authorized the employment OF cirii
engineers to survey these roads and canals, the
law of 1888 had repealed the authority to employ
military engineers, would the Union contend that
the obligation Of the President never to employ
military engineers in any capacity again would
be mandatorys Yet this is the inevitable con-
clusion from the reasoning Of its first article, in
which it was said the obligation of the Exec.
utive to employ government engineers on the
government rorks, became mandatory" when
the power to employ the civil engineer was
repealed.
Our reference to the laws authorizing the
extension of the Capitol, and which we think
clearly prohibits the employment of military
engineer, is passed over in silence By the Union.
We infer, therefore, that in this instance, as in
the case Of their employment in the construc-
ton Of some Of the custom-houses and post
Offices, it is conceded there is no authority Of
law for the practice. The only ground, then,
for it, as argded by the Uaion, is their superior
fitness on account Of their scientific education
AMI experience. The evidence Of their being
superior in skill and genius to all other Ameri.
can citizens is not found in any great monu-
msnis they hare erected to their own fame