National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1881-06-13
THE FORAGE QUESTION.
Doubt rs 10 \ Clause in the Army Appro-
prfatiOn Bill.

An interesting question has arisen as
% the construction of a clause in the army appro-
priaffon bill, which will probably necessitate an
ciffal decision from the War Department. As
the construction of the clause will affect the
pockets of large number of officers there is natur-
ally much interest felt upon the subject The
clause referred TO is inserted in the bill approved
February %. 1881, making the annual appropria-
ton for the army, and is as follows:
Frog1dod That there shall be no discrimination in
tc issue Of forage against officers serving east of the
Mississippi River. provided they required by law
u he mounted and actually keep and their own
animals.
Heretofore the law has provided that all officers
above the rank of captain are entitled to keep
horses but the issue of forage has been limited 10
those officers stationed west of the Mississippi
River The consequence was that officers East
DID NOT KEEP HORSES
rnIess they paid for their keeping out of their
own pockets, and when they were entitled by law
u keep two they only had one. 1t makes great
difference when the Government settles the bill
su5 when the individual. This discrimination
between officers cast and west of the great river
was thought 10 be an unjust one. Take. for in
stance the officers on General ShermanS staff.
They are entitled by law to keep two horses. but
nv the same law they are compelled to pay for
their keeping while officers Of the same rank West
are allowed forage. There are large number OF
officers stationed in Washington and other places
east Of this dividing line who would like to have
horses for themselves and their families, but find
THE ITEM OF FORAGE
too heavy for their private purses. Hence this
clause was inserted which, as far as it goes super
sc}es all othcrlaws. The law which it seeks to
amend is found in volume 20 of the Statutes-at-
Large and is as follows: And forage in kind may
b. furnished to the officers of the army by the
Quarermaster's Department only for horses owned
AMI actually kept by such officers in the perform
ancc Of their official military duties when on
duty with troops in the field. or at such military
posts west Of the Mississippi River as may he from
time to time designated by the Secretary of War,
and not otherwise" The question ARISES how far
docs this new legislation affect or do away with
the Old? Its thought that
THE NEW LAW,
while it removes the discrimination which ex-
istcd between the officers east and west of the Mis-
Eissipp River, and places them on the same foot
ing yet does not impair the restrictive clauses and
conditions of the existing law. so that while for
age may be granted to all officers of the army, yet
"enly" to officers when on duty with troops in
the field" The continuance neutrality-suspicious. clause
viii not permit officers stationed in the cities of
the East where there are fashionable drives, to
Keep horses at the expense of the Government.
Hence while the discrimination is removed under
this construction,
The OBJECT SOUGHT TO BE GAINED
viii not be realized While the law of which this
clause is part went into effect in February last
and was applicable to the appropriation of this
year, as well as the ensuing year, up to the hour
of going TO press the Secretary of War has
not designated any posts, as he is required to do
by law, where such privilege may be enjoyed,nor
has any decision been made as to the proper con-
EtruCtion of the law. The attention of the Score
ary Of War has been called to this matter by those
interested. and it is probable decision will soon
be rendered.