Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1860-02-18

military establishment with view to its har-
monous subordinaton to the civil institutions !
of the country. This duty could not well be I
performed by the Head of the State alone, en-
numbered as he is with so many other matters
that claim his attention; nor could it properly |
be devolved upon a senior general or common- |
der-in chief of the Army, since while he might |
naturally be borne beyond the limits due to the
supremacy of the civil power by zeal, ambition
and the other interests of his profession, it is in
fact a duty incompatible with his functions as
COMMANDMENT Chief The Head of State, |
under the imperial form of Government, may
take the field like like a Napoleon or Francis
Joseph, and make use Of his senior generals as
lieutenants; but he must leave the Minister of
War at home to administer the department.
lie could not send the Minister of War, as
such, to command. In fact in proportion as the
government of State becomes free and liberal,
both its Head and that function which represents
the military power,--that is, the Minister of
War--will remain during war at the seat OF
power, sending generals only to command. For
instance, President Foil, did net, and could not,
send Secretary Marcy to command our armies
in Mexico Ii is true that in virtue of control
ling agency over the army, Secretary Marcy
presumed to administer rebuke to the yictori-
ous Commander-in-Ch Chief in the very presence,
as it were, of all his subordinate officers but
this docs not show that the Secretary should
command the army. 1t shows rather that he
was not fit even for its control. No; the au-
thority to command, if delegated at all, must be
delegated to military person. Such is the
theory of our Government, and such has been
in accordance with much Of It's early practice.
The chief duty of the Secretary of War, we
repeat it, is to assist the President in preserving
a proper subordination of the military to the
Al. e H. l,t,t ha N
command of the army, like General, he can
not render this assistance. For in fact, we see
that in the Utah affair, instead of keeping the
two authorities separate and distinct, he con-
founds the two, making a political use of the
army to react upon a Free State, mixing up
Judges. Generals, Marshals and Governors in
an undistinguishable confusion, and thus. while
iniuring the State on the one hand, tending to
destroy the military spirit of the army on the
other The examples set to the army in mule
sales. -four contracts and other similar political
measures, coming as they do from so near the
| highest authority in the land, would soon de-
| morazc any army whatever. But besides this,
the dssisiance rendered BY the Secretary to the
President amounts in one case at least, to OPP
position 10 him. So that instead of being a
mere agent of the President, he makes himself
superior to him, and becomes the principal, and
an antagonistic one at that
This lofty attitude of u subordinate has been
of slow and gradual attainment; but SO high
has the usurpation of the Secretary Of War
lowered above all rule and precedent, that even
Congress itself, as if awcd into forgetfulness by
his imposing attitude, has, if we mistake not in
one or two instances, devoted duties upon him
which the Constitution recognizes as pertaining
solely TO the President of the United States.
The tendency in our country. well rs in all
/ al.
and give it monetary value; for this is the
easiest way Of reckoning and dsposing of mat
tcrs and it is in this way that some of our
prominent men have been led into the error of
comparing the Secretary OF War to an agent, TO
whom the President stands in the light of pJiit-
cipdl, conceiving that life and honor may be
ranked in the same category with property, and
men with mere chattels. And such views have
been favored still by the character of some Of
our peculiar institutions. But this is low and
degrading way of dealing with our military men,
and it would ultimately give them tone and
spirit corresponding with their treatment.
The law maxim, that what is done by the
agent is done by the principal, will not apply to
the Army, since that maxim has regard solely
to transactions affecting property; wGereas the
acts of the Secretary of War affect not only
property, but also life and honor, two qualities
which are of inestimably greater value than
mere property, and which no free people would
ever subject to any other than the highest au-
thority in the State. Where the life or honor
of military person is eminently at stake the
law renders it imperative that the ultimate de-
cision of the case shall be with the President
not with Secretary Of War. In a country like
ours, where POLITICAL sentiment becomes so de-
PRAYED, a mere political being of four years
standing, like the Secretary of War, is not a
safe or proper person with whom to intrust the
lives and honor of men; he may have not only
party resentmen;s but also personal hatreds and
private schemes TO subserve Whereas, on the
other hand, person of so exalted a position as
the President of the United States would nat
uray be less likely than Others of lower position
to be governed by unworthy motives. If, there
fore, Secretary does presume to act instead
of the President, he should at least follow mill
tary rules and be bound in conscience to declare
that it is by the Presidents command that he so
acts. Such is the only security, bad as it is,
that military men can have against wrong and
oppression on the part of Secretary of War
commanding the Army.
The more especially is this necessary, inso-
IL H. - =, l.,