The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1857-02-19

post; and, second. in Withholding his applIcatio,
for an extension Of leave from the War Depar,
resigned.
Inc secretary also characterizes Gen. Scott
report OF Sept 10 ~ false report In suppressinI
me TACT that he knew General Hitchcock wa
sasn IN st Louis. having telegraphed him ther,
ORDERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT:
Ihen follows discussion between them on thu
validity OF orders from the War Dessrtmept MOI
expressed 10 be by the authority Of the President
both show precedents for their side of the ques,
ton. but the Secretary brings the opinion Of the
auo ney General to bear on Gen. Scott, which
decides adversely to the old soldier.
In one stage of the discussion IN i6l y Genera
Scott varies the question some what by saying the
alluson in lis letter of July H. to the practice ot
the earfer Secretaries to speak in the anne of the
President, In their communications to higher off
GERS was more to the Difference due to age than to
superior rank or commission" and then cites nu
merous examples of such commune a ions from
Secretaries of War to army officers
The Secretary replies to this (p. l74) by saying
these cannot be examples of def.rence paid by the
Secretary to the age of the officer because in a
the officer whom he addressed "But," be conti-
ones. granting that these cases were all exam-
Piles OF the Difference due to age, what becomes
of the argument that this fern Of expression was
fuse to obey instructions because they do not ami
fest the respect due bis agel May an older officer
refuse to obey instructions which would be obga
tory on a youDgerl Or may an officer refuse to
obey instructions from young Secretary, which
he would obey from an old onel Your doctrine
would lead TO endless confusion; and the disputes
that would arise would have to be settled by Iefe.
renee to the records In the family Bible, instead Of
he Army Register"
But by far the greater part of the correspond
ence ia taken up with the discussion of General
Scotts money claimt; and il is ia conse Quence of
the long discussion in the correspondence on ihesc
matters, that it was called for by the Senate.
CLAIM FOR MILEAGE.
This case commences by Secretary Davis re.
fusipg to allow the account presented by General,
Scott for transportation Of self and servant at the
rate of sixteen cents per mile and cannot allow II
on the ground that the regulations give the allow
ance charged only to those officers who travel un
der written orders; and as General Scott did not
travel under such ORDERS he could not have mile
age. The same regulation prescribes that those
who travel without written orders, er at their own
dlscretlon, should have only actual expenses 1t
appears (p 1861 the accounting officers had refused
to pass this charge and hence the appeal to the
Secretary of War, which was made on the ground
that the General, being senior officer of the army
was authorized to travel on bis own authority "
The Secretary admits the authority, but SAYS if
be travels on his own authority, be mus. be paid
like all officers who travel on their own authority
actual expenses, and no more; that if by the re.
mark that he is senior officer of the army be
means that be has no proper SUPERIOR" in the
language of the regulation, to give him orders the
argument fails, for the President is such superior
Other similar accounts were subsequently brought
up by the General and upon his written certificate
that the journeys were performed by authority of
the Secretary of War the amount was passed to
his credit; but the decision originally made was
not Withdrawn, and stands to bar any further
claim beyond actual expenses
THE BREvETPAY.
This is the item which General Scott in his LET
ter of July 80 passogly alludes TO- ID l59 and in
ms letter OF August 6, % 1867 he challenges the
SecTe ary to discuss. taunting him with observing
a mastery silence in regard to it, Again. in his
letter of September 90, he says ''You shirk the
question of hostility to compensation &c 20 2O43
aud again in his letter of January 81, H. 225 )
. -, on RISK not word about the more recent ques-
ton ct pay and emoluments He also charges the
Secretary with secret hostility to the claim, and
with having concealed his opposition to it The
only circumstances on which this charge rests are
that the Secretary omitted to furri ish General
Scott copies of the remarks in opposition to his
claim when submitting 1t to the Attorney Gene al,
and that. when General Scott applied at the War
department for copy in the absence of the Sec.
re'ary, they were not found Immediately. This
deneral Scott considers as evidences of design TO
Keep The proceedings from his knowledge, and
eDdeavors to prove that the Secretsrv
endeavored to defeat the bill in the Senate. and
was hostile to the claim for brevet paw but con-
aed bis hostility, and attempted TO divert atten.
ion from it.
To these pecifsations the Secretary in ,ubstsnc.
repnes that his opposition to tn: bill reviying the
stade OF lieutenant general was publicly declared by
himself In debate in the Senate and he cannot ins.
slns wnat motive any rational man could supr oss he
hsa 10 divert attention. after he entered The ca hnet
from his opposition t. he had 90 publiaIv
opposed before that whenever he express.i any
opinion with gard the BILL that epinioo must me-
CCS5dlliY 70 l. lII
net exert himself to defeat it, IT, am As 10 his on.
sition to the claim for brevet pay General Scott
referred to the Attorney General {April 6 because
the Secretary had not Come to the conclusion that it
was gal claim; that he did furnish him COPY OF
his communication the AttoDsy Il, srsl heeau.a
1t is not the prac ice in the department to volunteer
such information bat !, furnished al soon IA he
aPphed for 1t; that as for any dedgn to suppes the
appicstion made at tho War Office nv bis sid.ds
camp for it, the long search by the Acting Secretary
and CLERKS ana their assurance that it could not De
found are all fct0ns of his own no one apoIied for
it but General Scott in person ar though thare wsa
momentary difficulty in finding il, it was found in
few hours, tpp. zl7 2S9) and a copy furnished.
Ihe Secretary further remarks that in giving Gen
Scott an opportunity tp 70) to be heard before the
Attorney General, and to put in arguments of coun-
sci upon faestion submitted by the War Depart
ment he had extended to him a COURTESY nsyar he.
fore accorded to any one.
1t will be observed that in the letter of July 80
General Scott slludes to the Secretarys Bipartisan
hoGiity to the brevet of Lisutenant General and to
the compensation that Congress inteEded to attach
thereto"
In reply to this the Secretary vindoated his course
IN opposing the act to authorize the Greret. Gen.
scott, not satisfied with this, taunts him (p 1851
with unwillingness to speak the sui ject of the
ompensation in these terms:
In my letter to you of the 50th ultimo, made
ng alusion to your partisan hostility to the re.
,iva of IT, rank of Lieutenant General and to the
pay, SO, attached thereto. You in reply, ve.y
&c suoposs refer to events that occurred
in The senate, in 1861, when you were a member
\ sasion was entirely to your cou ss in the War
terms, to this compensation intended by Congress-
encer
The Secretary, in his letter of September 7, says,
p. 1879
"As ycu have noticed my failure to remark on
YOUR claim to com pensation Lieutenant General
ind have in .rision, termed it masterly silence
will NOT longer sbst,in, when thus urged, to Goa.
Ider that branch OF your complaint Before enter.
ing however, upon the gu bject, will premise tnat
7ou were duly Informed OF the reference of your
,lsim to the Attorney General and. when you ap-
Piled for it. furnished with copy of my objsc.
ions to the allowance clsimed by you. which, with
Dour,l-tters advocatipssyour claim, had been SUBJ
nit:ed to the Attorney General Before concluding
he review OF your pecuniary elams before this de-.
,sItment, think you will perceive that my ilepce
pom that branch Of the subject was not caused by
he ant of material for q reply, my hos ility TO