Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1863-04-09

structon tonorshle h the aroa intentions Of all tho
para coucer 81 Eor wh4t I'd can come from
such exposures 'e"dsna to inpeseh, on rresumptisc
grounds, the prn teac o. one or another Of the
high pesonages charged more or less with the
conduct Of the war! What il said to damage
Gen. Mcclellan, whether it is just or not, can
reflect only on him or on those who seek his de-
graduation. He is 10 retirement and will not per-
hsps be called to do service again under this Ad-
ministration But the President, the General-in-
Chief, and the Secretary Of War should not be
heedessly coupled with associations that tend, so
far they have any tendency at all, to draw their
character for capacity or prudence into popular
suspicion and disrepute. We sure that all fair
minds will concur with the New York Journal Of
Commerce in the following reflections on this un-
fortunate exhibition
"What shall he said Of the bold ntimation by this CON-
mttre against the President Secretary Of War; aud Gen.
Halack-ths intimaon that they betrayed Bnrnside's
secrets to the encmyi 1t the most gross attack
mad by committee Of Congress Cabinet President
Doubtless ii intended to be directed specially at the
Gre airy Of War md Gen. Haleck but this committee
do not hesitate to publish the Presidents at
suspect the rerpoI sbily their betrayal rests
necessary to that so gross charge unsus aimed by
pro when there must have been Of which
the might have leaked out 10 d.gracfu to the
character Of the Committee and suhc's them to public
ndignnton In all their attacks upon General Mcclellan
they only charge him 18th too much cuut to much
OF the lives Of his But ia dealing with the higher
authorities ut Washington they make serou. charge
and they will be held to strict account hereaf5er for It,
The whole story about Gen. John Cochrane and the Pre-
.!ent is which should have the light; or
II published. should have been accompanied with fuller
statements than these insnuatons Of the committee "
If we could wish that the President might have
been spared the humiliations Of this exposure, and
that the insinuation Of having divulged important
military secrets might not have been cast either
upon him or his two distinguished subordinates it
is the less proper, that the esclandre has
occurred, that the moral which it teaches should
b. distinctly drawn.
Accordingly, we think it will be admitted by all
that the President should not appoint any General
to the Command of an army, or retain any General
in such command, who has SO forfeited the conf
dence Of his Government that his movements can
be arrested at the unofficial and candestine sug-
gestion of two Of his subordinate officers This is
not only matter of decorum but plain and
elementary priociple Of military administration.
In the second place. this disclosure serves to set
more in clear light the undefned nature of the
position held by General Halsck under the existing
military system of the Administration, if that can
be called system where system there would seem
to be none. For as before we have had the spec
taele Of Gcneralin Chief left by the President in
t,tal ignorance as to the plans Of Gen. Mcclellan,
80 now have the spectacle of General-in- Chief
who, though apprized that Gen. Burnside medi-
tated movement, was not apprized by the Presi-
dent that the NOV ment had been suspended at his
own instance. And so little were Gen Halleck
and the Secretary of War enlightened a, to the true
state of the facts that they urged the President to
dismiss the two officers on whose information he
had acted, as though the President, after he had
made their opinions his own, could have honoraby
punished them for giving him counsel which be
had judged to be more reliable than that of all his
other advisers put together. For he acted on the
advice Of Generals Cochrane and Newton, without
thinking it necessary to take either Gen. Burnside
or Gen. Halleek or the Secretary Of War into his
confidence The President doubtless knows better
than We do how much the opinions of Gen Halleck
are worth in deciding military question, but it
seems to us that while the latter holds the post of
Generalin Chief he should at least be treated with
the respect due to his Office. If thus far he has
failed to fulfil the expectations of either the Pres
dent or the country, may it not be because of the
very limited field within which he is permitted to
display his abilities?