The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1861-05-17

to prepare and endorse such remembrance
was gross military improperly, and an
act of INSTRUMENTATION, calculated to preju-
dice good order and military discipline in
| the minds Of the rank and file, does not re-
quire any military capacity or experience to
determine. AS bearing upon this point we
quote paragraph from the General Reg
ulations Of the Army" and one! from the
ARTICLES of War" Paragraph 2l0, OF
the " Regulations" reads:
Deliberations or discussions among any class
of military men, having the object OF convey
| ing praise or censure, or any mark OF appro6G-
ton. to,cards their superiors, or others in the
| military service, and all publications relative
| to transactions between officers OF private or
personal nature, whether newspaper, pam.
phlet, or handful, are strictly forbidden.
And the goth section of the "Articles of
War;" reads:
All crimes, not capital. and all disorders and
neglects which officers and soldiers may be
guilty of, to the prejudice Of good order
and military discipline, though not mentioned
in the foregoing articles of war, are to be taken
| cognizance of by general or reglmental court
martial, according to the nature and degree OF
the offence, and to be punished at their dlscre-
| ton.
1t will be seen that the whole tone
of the resolutions is that of rem0nstrance
against the order of General SCoTT,
as communicated through Governor RAM>
sEY, and that, therefore, the" deliberations !"
and discussions among these "mili-
tary men," which led to their adoption,
had the object of conveying censure," and
did convey censure, upon the General-in-
Chief who issued the order. Such de-
alterations and discussions are, in the
language of the Regulations, y "strictly
torbidden;" and being thus forbidden" the
participation therein by Col. GoRMAN, was
an act of insubordination, /" to the prejudice
of good order and military discipline"
And here, in answer to the first point of
the reply made by Col. GoRMAN through
his subordinates, we observe, that it was his
duty to forbid and prevent the assembling
of the officers of his command, for the pur>
pose of passing in review an order from his
superiors and that be did not do so, but,
on the contrary, assisted at and presided
over the meeting, is sufficient proof that he
did inaugurate it.
In answer to the second point, we OBJ
serve, that, it being rule of military dis
cipline that the response to an order must
return through, the same channels by which
it came to the source whence it proceeded,
the address of these resolutions to Gov.
RAMSEY, was not merely addressing them
to Gen. ScorT, but was the only method by
which they could properly be brought to
his notice. This fact, instead of being made
the subject of denial by Col. GoRMAN, should
be cheerfully admitted, as the only regular,
oficer-like act of the proceedings We have
criticised.
In regard to the fourth point, we call the
attention of Col. GoRMAN to the fact that
the order of Gen. Scorr made it the duty
of Gov. RAMSEY to notify the commanders
of the Forts who were to be relieved by de-
,tachmeuts from his command, which duty
Gov. RAMSEY performed the doing of
which, over again, without direction, by
Col. GoRMAN, was neither incumbent on
him, nor proper.
The fifth point acknowledges the prefer
ring of the modest request to Gov. RAM
sEY, that certain other companies be detail.
ed to perform duty which Col. GoRMAN
and his command evidently think inglorious.
Is it probable these six new companies -
will permit themselves to be mustered into
service, when they are told beforehand that,
at the suggestion end instance of the officers
of the First Regiment, they are to be sent
on duty which is thus stigGatized as OBJ
iectionable and inferior? Is this generous
and chivalric? Would troops who offered
themselves solely for such inferior service,
under such circumstances, and with a
knowledge of the disparagement thus put
upon it by Col. GoRMAN's command, be
highly appreciated as soldierss
So far as the charge of inordinate van
ity +" against Col. GoRMAN is concerned, we
beg leave to refer to the second resolution
of the series adopted by the meeting OF
officers over which he presided. Not to
treat of the laudatory expressions there
used, as violatlve of the paragraph from the
Regulations above quoted, we simply
suggest, that " inordinate is a mild adj
jective to employ in describing the sort Of
"vanity" which must be possessed by a
commanding officer, who would thus per-
NIT his subordinates to SLAYER him with
flattery to his face, without vindicating bis
manliness, and the dignity of his position,
by reproving those who committed the
breach Of good taste and correct discipline.