The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1863-01-30
Gu MncIrI.x CHANGED WITH nIsopEpI.

GES MCCLELLAN CHARGED WITH pisobEpi-
KScE OF ORDER. The following letter, pub
lishsd in the Washington chrOnieie, is from
Gsa. Hitchcock. one of the principal military
advisers of,he President and War Department
WASHINGTON CrrY. ID. c.. Jan. 81.
To the Editor of the Daily Chroniele:
Sin The New York Times Of yesterday
contains what was designed TO be received by
the public Us q report OF my testimony before
the Mcdowell court. now IN session IN this
city, but IL is 80 full Of errors and inaccuracies
of all sorts, mjsplacements Of whole passages.
and in one material particular directly revers-
ing my statement. that beg to request that
YOU will afford space in your columns for an
accurate publication Of that testimony, togeth-
err with the documents exhibited with IL.
which can doubtless be had at the court
room.
IL nv testimony was worth publishing al all.
II ought 10 have been published rs gave Il.
II was the duty OF the court TO determine the
question should be called upon to answer,
and mine only to state the truth. rs sworn TO
do. The court asked my opinion touching
the responsibilities in case Of disobedienee OF
orders by Gen. Mcclellan. in not leaving Tor
the security Of Washington the force desig-
mated by the four commanders OF the four
army corps composing the Army OF the Poto-
mac.
In answering this question, l placed the
responsibility where military law and army
usage has always placed it-with the officers
who, as was assumed in the question. had dis
obeyed the order-to wit. with Gen. MeClel-
Ian, and not with the President. who in
making good his original order, by the de,en-
ton of a part OF McDowelrs corps in front OF
washin gion, merely took necessary step to
repair a mischief committed by Mcclellan
himself, in no, attending to the order OF the
Sth of March. which was reiterated through
the Secretary of War on the 18th OF the same
month.
In the Times report OF my testimony this
norton of il is inverted. and am put forward
lam bound to supposed academies pla-
cling the responsibility with the President,
anG noiswith Gen Mcclellan. My opinion
was. and was so stated TO the Court. that
Gen. Mcclellan. in disobeying the orders Of
the President, took upon himself the respon-
sibilty for all the consequences that might fol.
low such disobedience. This is a plain mill
tary principle. which every soldier under
stands.
I will add here that Gen. MeClelian's
proper course, under the orueis OF the ifes'
dent, was first TO obey the order punctually
and precisely. and then to consider whether
ne had sufficien, force left for the execution
of his plan of going to Richmond via York,
town and the peninsula. II not he should
have reported 20 the President before starting
on his expedition. II. in that case. the Presi-
dent had required him to proceed in the exc
cu,ion of his plans. all the world would have
placed the responsibility at the door OF the
President. Gen. Mcclellan did not do this.
lie commenced his expedition "negleeting
the point SO ." explicitly =" ordered by the
President, and put a large part OF his force In
motion for the, Is,hmus before the President
knew of that " elect, p" aud thus took upon
himself the entire responsibility Of all that
followed.
A brilliant success has oftes protected an
officer from the penalty affixed by law-see
the 9th Article OF Wharf.-The disobedienee oil
orders, but IL will be new feature in military
history when failure. resulting from depar-
ture Of plan, and orders, shall be visited upon
the superior. whose plan was not followed,
aud whose orders were " neglected..
Respectfully. sc, .v
4. A. HITCHCOCK.