Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1880-08-26
ANOTHER GARFIELD GAME.


How the Republican Candidate
Once Upon Time sought 10
"ImprOye the Army by isemOv-
ing General Hancock.
Special Dispatch to the N. y. wor IT,
WASHINGTON, August 10 1t has been
announced with II flourish that the Repub-
lican Congres sional Committee are issuing
the speeches of General Garfield rs cam.
paien documents. 1t risks nothing iu say
ing though that one Of his speeches that
would be az greedily devoured by the
public as anything ne ever said and which
Is peculiarly pertinent just now, was over
looked by the committee in preparing
their orncular list and bad not Senator
Wallace come upon 1t to-day it is hardly
likely that the omission OF the Republicans
would have been corrected. As it is,
the Democratic Congressional Committee
will apply themselves industriuusly to its
circulation. The famous Order No. 40
was issued by General Hancock November
18th, lsG7. Early in the ensuing session
of Congra M, January 18Th 1865, Mr..
Garfield, according TO the Congressional
GIDbe, page is9 asked unanimous con-
sent in the House to introduce for
immediate consideration and action a
hill ITO reduce and improve the mil.
itary establishment by discharging
one major general" The bill provided
that the army should be reduced by the
discharge from military service of the
Major General who was the last CON.
miAsioned in that grade before January,
1868, the bill to take effect from its
passage, 80 that there should remain hut
four Iuajor generals in the army. As
soon as the bill had been read, MIR.
Garfield expressed the wish that il might
he acted upon the next morning Objec-
ton being made, MIR. Garfield then said
that he should bring it up the first thing
on the following Monday. The bill was
aimed directly at General Hancock, who
had been commissioned Major-G General
July % 1866 and was the last commits
stoned in that grade before January, 1865.
Thus it is seen that within six weeks after
Hancock had issued Order No. 40,
Garfield, Chairman of the Military Com
mittee, moved bill to punish him for
issuing it-not by retirement or pension,
but by removal. The Garfield bill was not
heard of again for the reason that on the
same day, January 18Th, Mr.. Bingham,
from the Committee on Reconstruction,
| reported II bill that answered nearly the
purpose sought by Garfield. 1t was in
three wordy sections, but its purport was
to compel Hancock TO obey Grant, the
General, rather than Johnson, the Presi
dent, aud investing in Grant the power TO
remove Hancock If he obeyed Johnson
1t also gave Grant the power to do any
| thing he might STE bit in each of the mill
tary Departments, regardless of the Presi
dent. In broader terms, il meant that the
powers granted the President by the Con-
stitution SHOULD be dyerthrown by statute.
The ill was put upon lis passage January
l7th, and GU that day Garfield made n
speech from an alleged constitutional
standpoint, Afur he had dispose d of what he
called is coustitutlouaiiIy, he let the light
in on his real purposes 10y arrnignng
| Hancock for issuing Order No 80. The
| language q the arrui snluent was repeated
by Mr. Lawrence, at Rocky Point, yester-
day MIR. Iiiugham's bill passed the
House, after Mr., Ciarfields speech by a
strict party vote Of III Republicans to Al
Democrats Garfield, of course, voting
yen 1t was not heard of again in Con
gress, for the reason given by Garfield to
lllnsiaIe, that Hancock afterwards kept
his pace, The speeoh, however, places
Garfield in square GntapOnism, not ouly To
General IiaucOck'S doctrines, but also ia
those which he has permitted his party
associates of late TO attribute to himself
at least 40 Tar is it elnbodies what he was
pleased to consider Lis opinions of the
relations of the civil and military power,
rs warranted bv The Constitution.