National Republican., 1883-07-12
pesertion from the Army.

Desertion from the army seems to be on the
questioned on the subject differ in opinion as
to the reason why this is so, and the official
reports from army headquarters do not give
any light on tho subject. The New York
Times has received statement from soldier
who deserted the army, giving the reasons for
his dcsertion, which are briefly these: He GU
listed in New York on the first of April, 1882,
to serve for the term of five years, and was
forwarded to his regiment in Montana, whore
he reported for duty on the first Of May. He
entered the service as a soldier, expecting to
do the legitimate duties of q soldier. lie had
no information that he would be required to
work at his trade, which was that of car
penter, or to act as common laborer. Had
he known that this would be required of him
he would not have enlisted, as he could get
better wages, with fewer hours of
work, as carpenter or laborer,
than as soldier lie did not know, and
was not informed, that among the duties of
II soldier were wood chopping, hay cutting,
bridge building, or road building He know
that in time of war soldier was expected
to do any unusual or extra duty which
might be required. During his first year 5
service his time was employed in cutting hay,
choppins wood, building bridges and was
frequently on duty as a carpenter under
orders of the quartermaster His regular
pay was $l3 per month, with an additional
allowance of 500 for extra work. The citi.
zcns employed, and who worked under him,
were paid $40 per month. This extra duty
made it necessary for him to overdraw his
allowance Of clothing, which would not have
been necessary but for the extra duty but,
on the contrary, he would have been
entitled to 800, or nearly that
amount, in lieu of clothing. During fifteen
months he performed only about four months
duty us real soldier; the remainder was
spent in carpenter worl; and common labor.
At inspection lie was ordered out of ranks
because he was not able to perform properly
the manual and evOlutions The result was
that he deserted. The Times thus comments
on the case:
Is it surprising that Private Smith, at the first
convenient opportunity, ran away? Is 1t any
! wonder that other enlisted men who have been
employed as BARRIERS, meniuls, not'wallOpGrs,
and servants have deserted now and again? Pd-
! Yate Smiths story Is a true one, He might have
said that, as an American citizen, he knew that
| when two parties enter into Il contract by which
one of the parties binds himself to observe and
| carry out certain rules, and where u penalty is
affixed ~ his violation of his part of the covenant
| the departure from the terms of the contract by
the other party will, if brought to the ujtIce OF
competent authority, effect the abrogation of thC
contract aud the penalty. Private Smith broke
his part of the contract because he believed that
government first broke its part. He deserted be
cause no had no other recourse,
Ought not some change be made in these
matters, and such a change as would not onl,
remedy the evils mentioned, but would en-
able the soldier to look for a reasonable pom
sion after long and faithful service
would require comparatively small sun
added to the $lOOOOO,OOO set aside for tn,
soldiers of the late war,
Would not such action as this by the gov
ernment make the army moro attractive anC
serve as an incentive to good behavior? Il
may bo said that soldiers homes are provided
for this class, But it is u we'll known fac