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

to prepare and endorse Such remOnStrance
was gross military improperly, and an
act of characterization, 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 2lO, 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 dppr00a-
ti0n, 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
billet, or handful, are strictly forbidden.
And the goth section of the "Articles of
War" reads:
All crimes, not capital, and all disorders and
negects 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 regimental court
the offence, and to be punished at their discre-
ton.
1t will be seen that the whole tone
of the resolutions is that of remonstrance
against the order of General SCOTT,
as communicated through Governor Rams
sEY, and that, therefore, the'' deliberations
and discussions among these mill
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," "strictly
torbidden;" and being thus forbidden" the
participation therein by Col. GoRMAN, was
an act of INSTRUMENTATION, " to the prejudice
of good order and military discipline
And here, in answer to the first point of
the reply made by Col. GERMAN 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 he 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
bis notice. This fact, instead of being made
the subject of denial by COL GoRMAN, should
be cbeerfully admitted, as the only regular,
officer-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. SCOTT made it the duty
of Gov. RAMSEY to notify the commanders
of the Forts who were to be relieved by de-
tachments from his command, which duty
Gov. RAMSEY performed the doing OF
which, over again, without direction, by
Col. GERMAN, was neither incumbent Oh
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 a 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 and instance of the officers
of the First Regiment, they are to be sent
on duty which is thus stigmatized as OBJ
iectionable and inferior? Is this generous
and chivalrc? 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. Germans command, be
highly appreciated as soldiers
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 vioatlve 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
Aattery to his face, without indicating his
manliness, and the dignity of his position,
by reproving those who committed the
breach of good taste and correct discipline.