The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1857-02-17


Inc Upper Missouri The nature Of this distant seryce
foOurss known General Scott and be had voluntarily
informed the Secretary that be should not grant leave Of
absence to any officer Of that regiment nevertheless he
nave General Hitchcock himself leave for four months
expire October Ga period after which the known difficult
ss Of navigation rendered ii extremely improbable that
General Hitchcock would be able ta reach his post before
the ensuing summer, tpp lTs, 2s4 Tbs Secretary on
uy Is directed General Scott revoke the leave p
which was not done On the 18th of September General
Hitchcock wrote TO General Scott requesting extension
His letter was not forwarded the War Department till
October but he inornsd by telegraph September
49, that the extension would not be granted On the 18th
Of September the Secretary General Scott inquiring
whether he had revoked the leave of absence Up 2o2 The
General replied September 10 that he had not because
among other reasons il supposed he early
in this month in order to reach his post before the erpira-
ton Of his leave so2 On the 9th of October General
Hitchcock aludingt athe difficulty il impsssbilry
Of reaching his post that season rendered his resigna
ton, Up. 24l-l
General Scott charges the Secretary with having forced
General Hitchcock from the service The Secretary replies
by stating the facts above related and remarks that the
resignation Of General Hitchcock so far as it was due to
the difficulty Of reaching his post the result Of Gen
scutts scr in reyoking the leave as directed
at time when he could have reached his post and sec
Ond in Withholding his application for an extension of
leave from the War Department until after the leave had
expired and be had resigned.
The Secretary also characterizes General SCOTS
of September 10 false report in suppressing the fact
that be knew General Hitchcock was then in St. Louis
having autographed him there only the day before.
In the progress Of the foregoing subjects General Scott
draws in question
The Fady Of Orders from the War Department, not er-
pressed 10 Be By The authority IF The Prssident
In this discussion General Scott relies upon numerous
peedens in which s1ch orders have named the Presidents
Up upon the principle that delegated authority can
not be redelegated (p 2l3) upon the common-aw doc.
trne that agents in the name of their principals
upon the military ruethat staff officers must speak in the
of their commanders citing p 1917 the authority Of
General Hamilton that the President is in military mat
ers the first general Of the republic adding himself that
the Secretary of War is the chefof the Presidents staff
The Secretary states precedrnts in which i'm
portant orders have been issued from the War Department
and obeyed, though expressed be by authority
many Of which addressed General Scott himself
and others were published TO The army by General Scot
commanding general, without objection, (p. I75)
The Secretary further observes that the question is not
whether orders issues IN Inc name oil the President shall
DC Is admtiedout whetnsr those ssued moi
IN his name snail be dfobeyed Upon this question, the
orders cited ny Genera scott are not IN point those cited
BY the Secretary are IN point and no such order shown
sVer 70 have been resisted on that ground
The Secretary also cites decisions OF the Supreme Court
n.
P holding that the acts OF the executive departments
are IN legal contemplation the acts OF the President
He further reminds Gen Scott of his controversy with
Cen jackson in ls7 which Gen. Scott held TINT resist
ance to the orders OF the War Department was resistance
to the President and therefore mutinous Up. IFS
In references to the paragraph quoted from Gen. Hsm-
ton the Secretary remarks that Its application to the
emf case depends entirely upon what General Scott him
sell ADDS TO hat the Secretary occupies the position Of
stan ocerand he Objects to the right OF his opponent
argue fro premises made BY himself for the occasion
Up Ifa)
long opinion from the Attorney General P 1922 gives
All ne authorities upon the point aud arrives at the con
eason That orders OF the form IN question are valid
IN one ssge Oh tne discussion Up lsi) Gen. Scott va
RES tns question somewhat oy saying the ausaon IN ma
'er o. 70 tae pracnce o. ne carrier Secretaries to
speak ne name o. tne PRESIDENT IN tneir eommunca
DONE higher ofoers was more 10 the Difference dut
age man 70 superior fank or COMMISSION ana tnen Gates
numerous examples on sucn from secrea
res OF war 70 army oHacers.
The Secretary replies to his Up l74) by saying these
cannot tie examples of Difference paid by the Secretary
the aq. f ,ba osoer .can-e i, ,na;or;t of ,s c.s.,