The Eaton Democrat. (Eaton, Ohio) 1875-1903, 1880-09-16
A SCRAP OF HISTORY.
How Gen. Garfield, in IS6S, Sought
to I" Improve the Arny'' by Re-
moving GEN. HancOck.-z-------

moving GEN. Hancock. x.z-----
Washington Letter.l
1t has been announced with q flourish
that the Republican Congressional Com
mittee are issuing the speeches of Gen.
Garfield as campaign documents. He
risks nothing in saying, though, that one
of his speeches that would be as greedily
devoured by the public as anything he
ever said, and which is peculiarly per-
tinent just now, was overlooked by the
committee in preparing their oracular
list, and, had not Senator Wallace come
upon it 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 industriously to
its circulation. The famous order No.
40 was issued by Gen. Hancock Nov.
90, 1867. Early in the ensuing session
of Congress-Jan. 13, 1s6s-Mr. Gar
field, according to the Congressional
Globe, page 489, asked unanimous con-
sent in the House to introduce for i'm
mediate consideration and action bill
"To reduce and improve the mill
tary 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 COM
missioned in that grade before January,
1868, the bill to take effect from its
passage, SO that there should remain
but four Major Generals in the army.
AS soon as the bill had been read, Mr..
Garfield expressed the wish that it might
be acted upon the next morning. OBJ
lection being made, Mr.. Garfield then
said that he should bring it up the first
thing on the following Monday. The
bill was aimed directly at Gen. Han
cock, who had been commissioned Ma
jor General July 26, 1866, and was the
last commissioned in that grade before
January, 1868. Thus it is seen that
within six weeks after Hancock had is
sued order No. 4, Garfield, Ghairman
of the Military Committee, moved bill
to punish him for issuing it-no by re-
trement or pension, but by removal.
The Garfield bill was not heard of again
for the reason that on the same day,
Jan. 13, Mr.. Bingham, from the Com
mittee on Reconstruction, reported a
bill that answered nearly the purpose
sought by Garfield. It was in three
wordy sections, but its purport
was to compel Hancock to obey
Grant, the General, rather than
johnson, the President, and in
vesting in Grant the power to remove
Hancock if he obeyed johnson. 1t also
gave Grant the power to do anything he
might see fit in each of the military de-
partments, regardless of the President.
In broader terms, it meant that the
powers granted the President by the
| constitution should be overthrown by
statute. The bill was put upon its pas.
sage Jan. II, and on that day Garfield
made speech from an alleged constitu
tional standpoint. After he had dis
posed of what he called its constitution
| ality, he let the light in on his real pur
poses by arraigning Hancock for issuing
order No. 40. Mr.. Bingham's bill
passed the House, after Mr.. Garfield
speech, by strict party vote of 124 Re
| publicans to 45 Democrats-Ga Garfield o
course voting yea. 1t was not heard o
again in Congress, for the reason givel
by Garfield to Hinsdale that Hancocl
afterward except his place" TIL
speech, however, places Garfield il
square antagonism, not only to Gen
Hancock's doctrines, but also to thos
which he has permitted his party asso
ciates of late to attribute to himself, a
least so far as it embodies what he wa
pleased to consider his opinions of tn
relations of the civil and military power
as warranted by the constitution.